NPO

[Kurt Granroth]

Derek A. Neighbors wrote:
> > Indeed.  I am an Open Source software advocate but I rarely push "free
> > software."  This, btw, is a *very* common attitude in the KDE camp and
> > is one of the single biggest differences between KDE and GNOME
> > developers.  GNOME is very much a "free software" project... KDE is
> > Open Source.
> 
> KDE is actually free software.  As the QPL is free software and KDE
> iirc is now dual licensed as GPL also.  You see the misnomer you
> have is that if it isnt GPL/LGPL it isnt free software.

I agree on a strictly technical definition sense but disagree in a
real world usage sense.  "Free software" is a moral stand more than it
is a license or copyright issue.  KDE does not and never has taken any
kind of moral or philosophical stand that free software is better than
the alternative.  Since we use free software licenses but don't treat
it religiously, we are more closely aligned to the Open Source camp.

<aside>KDE is not dual licensed, Qt is</aside>
 
> RMS' push to get things to be GPL Compatiable has complicated your
> view of FREE.  There are only a small number of GPL Compatiable
> licenses (I believe that is what you consider free software) However
> almost every piece of software on a GNU\Linux box is under a FREE
> license, just not necessarily a GPL Compatiable free license.

I'm actually acutely aware of pretty much everything to do with GPL
and GPL-like licenses and MUCH more aware of the terminology and what
it means than I'd like.  "Benefits" of fighting the KDE license wars
for so many years, I guess :-/

 
> > The difference, for those who haven't followed the subtleties of the
> > phrases, is that I prefer Open Source software solely because it is
> > *practically* a much better model than closed source development for
> > the things that I work on and use.  Sure, the ethical and moral ideals
> > that free software convey are *nice* and I realize that Open Source
> > wouldn't even be here if not for the extremists like Richard... but I
> > just can't seem to view closed source developers as evil or even
> > wrong.
> 
> It is not mandatory one view closed source as evil or wrong, though
> that is the common feeling most 'free advocates' have.  I prefer to
> think of them as just un enlightened. ;)

Hehe.. one could argue that it *is* "mandatory", though, if you are in
contact with other free software advocates frequently.  I've seen
people *jumped* at shows by (mostly) Debian and GNU volunteers (never
the paid people -- they are all very cool individuals) when they have
refused to view free software as a moral issue.

I agree that if you don't have much contact with that crowd you could
easily consider yourself a "free software advocate" without going all
the way.

> > And if you don't think of free software in terms of "good and evil"
> > "morally right vs wrong", than you clearly haven't talked with TRUE
> > free software advocates.  Those of you who have talked with RMS (or
> > even listened to any of his speeches) can back me up here :-)
> 
> I talk to RMS about daily and will back you up.  He believes very
> much this is a war and that prop software is the enemy.  Note I said
> prop software not prop software developers.  I think he wants to
> educate people, but doesnt them as individuals as evil. (Though he
> is less than tolerant of such things so I can see the issue)
 
Indeed.  And I don't fault RMS for his positions at all.  Even though
I don't feel like he does, I *do* think that his "black and white"
world view was necessary to get this movement started.  He is also
INCREDIBLY consistent in his beliefs and I respect that in anybody.
-- 
Kurt Granroth            | http://www.granroth.org
KDE Developer/Evangelist | SuSE Labs Open Source Developer
granroth@kde.org         | granroth@suse.com
            KDE -- Conquer Your Desktop