Redefining Freedom

[Eric "Shubes"]

Nice opinion, Alan.
I think you should send it to Patrick (if you'd like).

alandd at consultpros.com wrote:
>> I came across this piece (I think from the Freespire).
>> Thought some of you might find it interesting.
>>
>> http://www.silverstrandsolutions.com/freedom/redefiningfreedom.html
>> --
>> -Eric 'shubes'
> 
> You are correct about the Freespire aka Linspire connection.  Background
> on the author, Patrick L. Green is on this page
> http://www.silverstrandsolutions.com/about.html where he is clearly
> identified as a "Linspire Insider"  For what that is worth.
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Interesting and well written, mostly.  The style is too wordy for my taste
> but then I'm an engineer and enjoy clear, direct communication.
> 
> He fails to define what is bad about the Free Software philosophy from a
> technical and objective standpoint.  He doesn't like to be labeled a bad
> citizen for using non-Free Software combined with Free Software.  This, he
> defines as taking away his freedom to choose to use non-Free Software if
> he wants.
> 
> OK.  Rude people are everywhere and people who disagree with you are
> everywhere too.  That doesn't address the merits (or demerits) of the Free
> Software Movement's goals.  Nor does it remove his freedom to choose to
> use non-FS.
> 
> His examples for the statement that "Americans willfully choose reasonable
> restrictions on their constitutional rights to meet a want or a need" have
> NOTHING to do with constitution rights.  He cites:
> - Having to wear a shirt and shoes to get a Slurppie.
> - Having to wear a tie and not peirce his lip to get a professional job.
> - Not being allowed to talk about religion, politics or lifestyles in the
> workplace.
> NONE of these examples have to do with constitutional rights.  He lost
> some credibility with me right there.
> 
> In acknowledging the current abuses of the copyright and patent systems,
> he fails to address how these can or should be rectified.  Then he offers
> the confusing statement "not all things have to be open to the public
> domain."  Is this an attempt to confuse copyrighted, licensed Free
> Software with works in the public domain, as many clueless reporters do? 
> I don't know but someone new to the FS vs. close software discussion could
> be confused at this point.
> 
> Brining up "handcuffs" and "losing the freedom to chose" again borders on
> FUD.  Using FS does not remove the ability to use non-FS right alongside
> it.  Never has.  Some corners of the community may bring pressure against
> doing so, he complained about that earlier.  But usually there is no
> license violation happening by doing so.  At least not a violation of the
> GPL but you'll have to check your own non-FS EULAs.  ;^)
> 
> Next is the tired, but too often true, complaint that current FS users
> unduly pick on, intimidate or ostracize new non-technical users.  While I
> have not been subject to hardly any of this sort of thing, horror stories
> do come up.  I agree with him that we current users need to be sure we
> help new people come into the community.  PLUG is very good at this!
> 
> Now comes the "new" definition of freedom and community.
> 
> I'm sorry but I cannot classify Warren Woodford (of MEPIS) as a visionary.
>  I have researched the issue of licensing in the MEPIS distro and have
> found it lacking in several ways.  I have not researched much on the
> licensing practices of Linspire and Kevin Carmony but am quite willing to
> embrace people and developers that follow good licensing practice.  Warren
> Woodford does not do so and therefore receives scorn from the community,
> deservedly in my opinion.
> 
> His thesis that people who mix FS and OSS software with proprietary pieces
> cannot be considered a good citizen is wrong. It is very possible to be a
> good citizen of the FS and OSS community and still produce and sell closed
> source software.  How?
> - By clearly crediting the authors of the FS and OSS software that you
> distribute.
> - By clearly identifying the licenses of all software you distribute.[1]
> - By clearly understanding and following the licenses of all software you
> distribute.[2]
> - By allowing open processes in which you participate to proceed by the
> rules defined at their inception.[3]
> 
> [1]http://www.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=53313&cid=121990
> [2]http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205&tid=150
> [3]http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS4417146902.html
> 
> It is the integrity of ones behavior that defines good citizenship to most
> FS advocates.  To the extent that so called "visionaries" violate the
> spirit of the community, trying to take more than is given, is the extent
> that they will continue to be pushed to the fringe.  Except for the few
> rude zealots, the FS and OSS community already has the "new concepts" of
> "Tolerance toward other lifestyle choices known as proprietary software
> and kindness towards new entries in our community."  Linspire, MEPIS or
> any other FS/OSS vendor can be a good citizen and keep their closed
> software too.  They just have to play within the rules (licenses and
> spirit) of the community.
> 
> That is my response to that, for what it is worth.
> 
> Alan
> 


-- 
-Eric 'shubes'