jamesbond wrote:RMS starting GPL sparked a movement on their own side to keep the BSD open.
It's okay to disagree with RMS to but deny the fact that he _started_ the whole thing is just history-rewriting.
i agree, and thats how i ended up on the free software side. open source bills itself as more reasonable, practical, and inclusive-- and free software as naive idealism.
i started on the open source side, but facts mattered. facts and history re-writing are bound to face each other down sooner or later, and i dont like being lied to.
when open source claims to be more reasonable, they are talking about false compromises and favouring unwritten rules over stuffy-sounding written ones. theyre talking about being more reasonable on the surface, theyre talking about appearances and less about true nature. and it works, for the same reason that monopolies gain footholds.
when they talk about being more practical, they mean more practical for monopolies who want to participate halfway and still get full kudos just for showing up-- when they talk about being more inclusive, its that old idea of monopolising what "inclusive" means and kicking out everyone who disagrees-- which in practice is often more exclusive and proves to be really just hype and lies.
all of which i enjoyed for plenty of years under microsofts regime, thanks anyway.
yes, "floss" is an acronym of a portmanteau, or a portmanteau of two acronyms. but it implies that you can be a free software advocate and open source will be cool about it-- and not spew venom at you collectively for your politics like linus torvalds does-- and that they wont constantly create a version of history that writes you out of the picture and says nothing when people ridiculously credit torvalds with everything done for all the years prior to linux existing.
it fits their "monopoly is ok" narrative. to be honest, anybody that thinks monopolies are ok and thats the same thing as free software-- is deeply naive or at least, deeply misinformed.
to then look at the people spending lots of money and time and dedication deliberately misinforming them and not being pissed off about being lied to for a few years-- is also naive. but i maintain that open source isnt all bad. its deeply dishonest and rotten at the core, and a lot of good people are associated with it regardless-- who should take another look at the lies theyre swallowing every day.
a lot of the "big concerns" (perhaps all but one or two) that people have about the gpl for example, are just people that know better saying "what if, what if, what if?" until everyone else is curious too. a lot of it can be fixed with 10 minutes of research that isnt done, because "what if" is repeated until it drowns out the easy-to-find answers to "what if."
free software isnt perfect, but its a great deal more respectable in this regard.
now, am i in favour of some middle ground that isnt built on re-writing history and blaming people for being honest and having written rules-- while still offering alternatives? basically-- what open source claims but doesnt deliever?
sure. maybe free software is better than that too-- but part of freedom is letting people decide for themselves and organise themselves more. the fsf is a little too top-down for my taste. we need them, they deserve more credit despite (and frankly robbed of by) the dishonest marginalisation and co-opting that open source has orchestrated and linus torvalds has worn like a crown-- but people who disagree still have a right to do so.
what they dont have a right to do is rewrite history in a way that is so self-serving, you cant swallow it forever if you like facts and have perspective. certainly they have a right to be mistaken-- but what theyre doing is training an army of corporate shills.
im pro-business, but any monopoly built on and propped up by misinformation is bad for society and nothing to do with freedom. and lets face it, thats what it generally takes to sustain a monopoly-- misinformation.
open source is simply a lie. maybe not the bruce perens version-- but that version was his own misconception. it was once mine, too. its sad that it has so much hold over good people.
open source really means that its immature and hateful to put a dollar sign in micro$oft but you can call the people who are being more honest "neckbeards" because the truth is-- youve aligned yourself with one, and against the other. so you are trained to defend the corporation and attack the individual.
perhaps it should be called open $ource, then. but only because we dont have any punctuation that implies monopoly-- only shills. its not because i hate dollars. i only hate the love of money ranked in importance over the love of people or a more honest assessment of history. that much i find pretty repulsive.
i have plenty of critiques for my own side-- if people are going to make a mantra of "free as in free speech" they should care a little more about the latter. it can be a bit stifling at times. i wouldnt say open source is better in this regard. both sides make it clear that you are generally free to agree with them.
musher0 wrote:Plus our National Film Board (a federal institution) has existed
since 1939.
im a big fan of the nfb, as well as tvo. if it comes down to scrapping the nfb or scrapping nafta-- keep the nfb. trade agreements like nafta, cafta and acta will funnel canadas economy directly to china. china doesnt keep its side of trade agreements. dont take it from me, ask (canadian brett) gaylor how it really works. or michael geist.
[color=green]The freedom to NOT run the software, to be free to avoid vendor lock-in through appropriate modularization/encapsulation and minimized dependencies; meaning any free software can be replaced with a user’s preferred alternatives.[/color]