From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source" Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:29:43 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <8762o41no8.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <010001cc29eb$fc806cb0$f5814610$@cs.ua.edu> <87vcw9ksdd.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87hb7rlmjt.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87boxxlpkf.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87wrgl3cxx.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <877h8lkmzw.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <8762o43m37.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <871uyslq3d.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1308328480 30260 80.91.229.12 (17 Jun 2011 16:34:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:34:40 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 17 18:34:36 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QXc0C-0007lV-7s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:34:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36887 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QXc0B-0002Yt-8i for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:34:35 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58195) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QXazk-0000ru-To for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:30:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QXazi-00052I-6Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:30:04 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:48838) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QXazh-00051v-Pr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:30:02 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QXazg-0001n9-3s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:30:00 +0200 Original-Received: from p508ed884.dip.t-dialin.net ([80.142.216.132]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:30:00 +0200 Original-Received: from dak by p508ed884.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:30:00 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 66 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p508ed884.dip.t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Vb/Qk+VvEik+F2CcFWIfXL0BoCs= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:140611 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > David Kastrup writes: > > > Why win their hearts with false pretense? One won't be able to keep > > them that way. > > You're the one talking about false pretenses. "Presentation" does not > mean lying or hiding one's true intent. It means talking about your > ideas in terms that others understand. Creating free software sucks as a business model because access to it is by its nature not constrainable. Any non-trivial companies working in that area are working as a) creating software on demand where the customer does not care about the license. This is not "free software", but rather "I don't care about the license" software business. b) creating distributions of free software and selling copies. Business in that area is heading South in the age of the internet and DVD burners. And the competition are mass copying services that are license agnostic. c) trying to make a service model around free software. Again, this is not license specific, except that small-fry businessmen have a chance, when highly skilled, to actually look at source code and do before-the-time patches. Big-fry businesses get access to source code anyway. About the only company holding its own after going public is RedHat, and their servicing and distribution terms for the commercial offerings are way out of the free software philosophy. And they were free software from the start. Every major company/project that _became_ free software or centered around its business went down. StarOffice went into Sun, became OpenOffice (and Sun tried to make SunOS Open Source as well) and went down with Sun. SuSE was taken on by Novell, and Novell went down. Symbian became Open Source, and went down within a year, while Qt apparently remains Open Source even though its developers were acquired by Nokia. But Nokia switches to Windows and sold off Qt licensing business. And so on. While the companies crash and burn, they leave behind free software, but without a developer base and ongoing commitment. Beyond a certain complexity, having the source code in your hand without the brains behind it does not help. FLOSS software rates awful under the metrics that the Open Source movement is interested in. Those are not the metrics that the free software movement was interested in, or it would not have started in the first place. > In the case of my circle, you *can* talk about free software and have > them understand that this connotes a movement. You *can* use the > usual terms of discourse used in the free software movement and they > will understand them. > > They just don't yet agree with the program. They may never consider > it ideal, but come to support it with minor philosophical > reservations. And yes, by "program" I do mean "elimination of > artificial property rights of all kinds in software". Nobody including myself agrees with Richard except, sadly, reality. -- David Kastrup