> Those evil Open-Source guys:
>
> > They think it’s just fine if someone wants to
> > write proprietary extensions to their software
>
> It is really important to not collaborate with those
> bastards by any means. Because what matters most is
> ideology, not actual working open systems ...
Do you believe this mocking tone is helpful?
rms is often considered (sans evidence in most cases) to present an extreme view, but this interview was, IMO, a sequence of examples of his well considered, consistent, polite, arguments for a particular position.
I think what we are actually starting to realise now - some more slowly than others - is that ideology actually is what matters most. That we've let it slip for so long is regrettable.
> I consider myself as a "open source people" and I would
> say, that yes, I reject a philosophy of fanatism.
In general, irrational behavior, caused by forced oversimplification of complex things, to try to make things easier ... to have a simpler world. Black and white. Good and bad. Gives you a stable worldview in a complex world, less worries.
Rms does that by defining his license "ethical" and therefore everything else unethical.
Good and bad.
So it seems easier to see who the good guys and the bad guys are, but whether it will actually help anything to make really progress, I strongly doubt.
Because all this energy put into the war over license, did not create a single line of code, nor do I see how it helped protecting things. Once a code is open, it stays open, even if other people use that to make other things closed.
Thats why I don't like ideology so much, I care much more about the things the people actually DO and not what they talk about. And if the goal is, to have for example a open mobile phone, which you can really trust, than all this talk about license only distracts and divides, but helps nothing to get things done.
> Because all this energy put into the war
> over license, did not create a single line
> of code, nor do I see how it helped protecting
> things. Once a code is open, it stays open,
> even if other people use that to make other
> things closed.
War?
rms is in a singular position - he has authored some of the most useful components of free software out there, and also one of the most useful free software licences.
If you're going to complain about his contribution on either front, you'd need to present some hefty credentials of your own.
> For me it seems he would much rather have no
> computer at all, than one with a normal OSS
> license.
Judging the merit of the man's position based on how things seem to you is perhaps disingenuous.
Also, a 'normal OSS licence' - I wonder what you mean by this.
DFSG has some clear thoughts on the matter of free software licences, and there's myriad licences that (to varying degrees) are considered sufficiently free by the FSF, but I don't know of any useful definition of 'normal OSS licence'.
There's risks with categorising groups of licences - here [2] is a discussion about the risks of talking about a/the 'bsd licence', for example.
Since we are by definition talking about definitions, being overly casual with our words is inappropriate.
> So if the original goal was to operate in a
> open world, where you are allowed to study
> and modify the software you use, I call it
> irrational and fanatic to focus on the license.
Original goal was about freedom.
Happily, original goal hasn't changed in ~30 years.
I can't tell if you are intentionally conflating the issue with your insistence on 'open' / avoidance of 'free', or if you haven't finished reading the available source materials.
> And for the ordinary user there is by far not
> enough OSS to satisfy the needs.
That's a grand claim to be making, and it seems to me that it's not the case.
One more word about what I meant with irrational behavier. For me it seems he would much rather have no computer at all, than one with a normal OSS license.
That he cares much more about licenses, than actually to have as much open software as needed. So if the original goal was to operate in a open world, where you are allowed to study and modify the software you use, I call it irrational and fanatic to focus on the license. And for the ordinary user there is by far not enough OSS to satisfy the needs.
It's an argument for why LGPL exists, and when FSF thinks its the appropriate choice. It seems to me that it disproves the irrational black-and-white view of the world you cite.
Well, it's true, I wasn't aware of the lgpl anymore, but apparently just like rms, because this quote from him from the interview, in which he seperates the Open-Source Movement, from the "Free Software Movement":
> They think it’s just fine if someone wants to
> write proprietary extensions to their software
would mean, that everybody who uses the lgpl is not part of the "Free software movement" anymore ...
I think you might be interpreting some non-existent malice between the two movements. Stallman's stance is simply 'There are two movements - open-source and free software. Please affiliate me with the correct one'.
He may do so and yes, he does so in a quite neutral, polite way.
But I would disagree that there are 2 different movements, when all that divides is the copyleft. So I consider the "free" software movement as a (fanatic) part of the open source world.
Btw the freedom of "free" software is actually less, than oss. Because with oss i cqn indeed do whatever i want, and with "free" software I can't.
So I can't help, but mock them from time to time ...
The difference between free software and open source isn't copyleft. Both free software and open source embrace copyleft.
From your writing I deduce you are of the opinion that open source is more or less equivalent to permissive licensing, i.e., using BSD-style licenses.
The actual difference between the two is that open source values the productivity benefits that come from sharing, whereas free software is primarily about protecting the freedom of people.
Mocking should be done carefully, and one should avoid mocking things one doesn't understand.
> whereas free software is primarily about protecting the freedom of people.
That's why people often misunderstand the redefined/restricted freedom of GPL. I don't even want to associate GNU with "free software". Just replace "have the freedom to ..." for "have the right to ...", this way the philosophy of GPL would sound better to my ears.
> Because what matters most is ideology, not actual working open systems ...
The problem is that ideology is the only thing which can guarantee actual working open systems in the long term.
Co-operation with proprietary software is much like co-operation with an oppressor: those who co-operate enjoy a short-term advantage, but at the cost of long-term damage to themselves and to their fellows.
The only way to guarantee freedom is to take it, and refuse to let it go.
That's fine. Between us, we can frame the debate. The choice should be between Free and Open software; proprietary software shouldn't even have a place at the table. Through our disagreement, we're working together to move the needle.
