Nice opinion, Alan. I think you should send it to Patrick (if you'd like). alandd@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' --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss