NPO

"Derek A. Neighbors" wrote:
>
> > There's got to be room for compromise here as well. There are times when
> > Free Software isn't necessarily appropriate. That probably isn't due to
> > the software itself, though. For instance, I really want my tax software
> > to have a warranty. At the same time I want something that runs on a Free
> > Software OS. Maybe it could be done with a Free Software licence such that
>
> I think RMS would say there is no situation where
> Free Software does not apply.
>

And this is why the free software ideal is such a problem. RMS takes a
very idealistic view and for someone who can hold those convictions that
is fine. Unfortunately, in the real world ideals are virtually
impossible to achieve. Open Source ackowledges this fact free software
does not. This does not mean that RMS and the FSF should not try as they
certainly should but it does mean that they should better pick their
battles. Free software and open source have largely the same goals but
open source is not so focused on such an extreme idealology. It still
has one (to most business people anyway) but is more willing to make
tradeoffs to achieve some benefit without completely losing site of the
goal. By inciting battle between the free software and open source camps
and using FUD tactics the FSF is doing far more damage then good. There
is a common enemy and that should be the focus. This free software /
open source debate is destructive especially since all free software is
also open source software.

Whether the FSF likes it or not the term Open Source is widely accepted
and is going to continue to be accepted because it is willing to
compromise enough to allow businesses to participate. Without that
participation we wouldn't have anywhere near the level of penetration
for free software that we are currently seeing. I know business is a bad
word around the free software world but even the FSF must recognize that
without business usage then their ideal can never be attained.


> > the warranty is only in effect if certain aspects of the Free Software
> > guarantees haven't been exercised. I think, however, we're going to have
> > significant difficulties getting an accounting software company to buy
> > into that. Please feel free to prove me wrong :). In such a case I would
> > still like to have source code in order to submit bug fixes, but I could
> > live without it.
>
> In this case, I think the right answer is the IRS
> should be providing you tax software. It should
> be both open and free.
>
> Derek Neighbors
> derek@gnu.org
>
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

--
Kimbro Staken
Chief Technology Officer
dbXML Group L.L.C
http://www.dbxmlgroup.com