D&C GLug - Home Page

[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] UN/Linux/ZDnet

 

On Sunday 18 December 2005 1:13 pm, Tom Brough wrote:
> >Personally, I think we have ourselves (i.e. the wider GNU community) to
> > blame for this kind of misunderstanding. Too long we've pushed "open
> > source" as the holy grail when what we actually wanted was free software.
>
> I dont think I can get too excited about wording on this document.

Agreed - it's the background that interested me.

> The 
> free software community should show itself by its deeds and community
> spirit, not necessarily by words alone. 

Exactly - because if the community chooses to only use GPL-compatible licences 
(or preferably just the GPL) it will make it easier for others to understand. 
The situations where the Lesser GPL is suitable are getting fewer as each 
release goes by.

With the possible exception of artwork (images, music), I can see no reason 
(other than historical) for any non-GPL licences in GNU/Linux distributions.

Once a package decides on a licence and starts accepting contributions under 
that licence from the community, it becomes all but impossible to change that 
licence (as it should involve the consent of all). This makes it all the more 
important that we all choose to use packages that are GPL-compatible NOW - no 
matter how bad they might seem - so that they can be improved.

> I think Neil is right, we seem to concentrate too much on words, and
> ideology and splitting hairs because of the degrees of difference
> between "open source" and "free software". In an ideal world there would
> only be one license and that would be GPL, but unfortunately we have to
> deal with complexities and varying degrees of understanding and
> commitment, and some need to travel down the road one step at a time,
> while other make giant leaps, we need to support all methods of
> "conversion"

True, all the more reason for those who are on the "inside" to be consistent!

There is a world of difference between open source and free software but there 
is, IMHO, no reason to have a spectrum of licences that fit uncomfortably and 
sometimes perilously between the two.

> Its up to us (the free software community) to make our views known
> through are actions and deeds, because the saying that  "actions speak
> louder than deeds" still rings true to this day. Let's not get too
> frustrated that things arent changing rapidly by rejoice that things are
> changing ... slowly but for the better.

That also means that users should gravitate towards free software packages in 
favour of proprietary (or even just non-GPL compatible) no matter whether the 
free software package is "inferior" in some way.

Users actions speak as loudly as developers - that is one of the core 
principles of the community, it brings an equality to users and developers by 
making it easy for advanced users to contribute to development. Users cannot 
contribute if they can't see and get help understanding the source code - 
it's just as important to have free documentation as free software.

-- 

Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgp3LstL8yJDu.pgp
Description: PGP signature