Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Richard Stallman]

Emacs is not intended to be open source, but rather free/libre
software.  We have developed it for freedom's sake, and we want people
to know this.  Referring to Emacs as "open source" tends to cover up
our ethical values up behind a different view that only cites
practical values.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
for more explanation of the difference between free software and open
source.

If you would like our participation in this study, please agree to
give the free software movement equal mention in the study's report.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:

 > If you would like our participation in this study, please agree to
 > give the free software movement equal mention in the study's
 > report.

Dr. Carver,

I hope that neither participation in the survey by Emacs developers,
nor what you write in your academic reports will be influenced by
inappropriate pressure of the sort quoted above.  Nevertheless, as a
social scientist myself, I hope that you will give consideration to
the influence of the free software movement as such on the tools and
best practices of distributed software development.

While my academic work is on other topics, in over twenty years of
participation in free, libre, and open source software (FLOSS)
projects, my observation has been that both the *philosophy* and the
*fact* of freedom in FLOSS development have strongly influenced
distributed development practice.  This is true of both extremes of
"open" free software projects like Emacs and in "closed" commercial
products (I can't be more specific about the product, but the company
is Amazon.com), as well as many projects of hybrid nature.  This
influence has several channels, including tools, workflows, and
attitudes of developers toward their work.  I hope your survey is
designed to capture this influence where present, and if not, I
suggest you take care not to overlook it when it is present in the
responses to open-ended questions.

Just-one-Dismal-Scientist's-opinion-ly y'rs,

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Deniz Dogan]

On 2011-06-13 21:59, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If you would like our participation in this study, please agree to
> give the free software movement equal mention in the study's report.
>

"Our participation"?

RE: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[opensourcesurvey]

Richard,

Thank you for the comments. Our apologies for not clearly differentiating the two types of software. In analyzing the results and reporting the data, we will make sure to take this into account. For you information, we have sent the survey to other projects that would fall into the category of Free Software.

-- Jeff

Assistant Professor
University of Alabama
(v) 205-348-9829  (f) 205-348-0219
http://www.cs.ua.edu/~carver


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen J. Turnbull [mailto:stephen@xemacs.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 10:24 PM
To: rms@gnu.org
Cc: opensourcesurvey; emacs-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

Richard Stallman writes:

 > If you would like our participation in this study, please agree to  > give the free software movement equal mention in the study's  > report.

Dr. Carver,

I hope that neither participation in the survey by Emacs developers, nor what you write in your academic reports will be influenced by inappropriate pressure of the sort quoted above.  Nevertheless, as a social scientist myself, I hope that you will give consideration to the influence of the free software movement as such on the tools and best practices of distributed software development.

While my academic work is on other topics, in over twenty years of participation in free, libre, and open source software (FLOSS) projects, my observation has been that both the *philosophy* and the
*fact* of freedom in FLOSS development have strongly influenced distributed development practice.  This is true of both extremes of "open" free software projects like Emacs and in "closed" commercial products (I can't be more specific about the product, but the company is Amazon.com), as well as many projects of hybrid nature.  This influence has several channels, including tools, workflows, and attitudes of developers toward their work.  I hope your survey is designed to capture this influence where present, and if not, I suggest you take care not to overlook it when it is present in the responses to open-ended questions.

Just-one-Dismal-Scientist's-opinion-ly y'rs,

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Karl Fogel]

opensourcesurvey <opensourcesurvey@cs.ua.edu> writes:
>Thank you for the comments. Our apologies for not clearly
>differentiating the two types of software. In analyzing the results
>and reporting the data, we will make sure to take this into
>account. For you information, we have sent the survey to other
>projects that would fall into the category of Free Software.

They are the same thing -- they are not "two types of software".
Rather, there are two terms for the same type of software, and those
terms each have different emphases.

I realize this not necessarily obvious to those who don't live and
breathe this stuff, so please don't take my comment above as any kind of
criticism.  I just wanted to clarify, as it might not have been clear
from Richard's mail that he was differentiating between terms and
(perhaps) between goals, but not between two different types of
software.

Best,
-Karl

>Assistant Professor
>University of Alabama
>(v) 205-348-9829  (f) 205-348-0219
>http://www.cs.ua.edu/~carver
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen J. Turnbull [mailto:stephen@xemacs.org] 
>Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 10:24 PM
>To: rms@gnu.org
>Cc: opensourcesurvey; emacs-devel@gnu.org
>Subject: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"
>
>Richard Stallman writes:
>
> > If you would like our participation in this study, please agree to  > give the free software movement equal mention in the study's  > report.
>
>Dr. Carver,
>
>I hope that neither participation in the survey by Emacs developers, nor what you write in your academic reports will be influenced by inappropriate pressure of the sort quoted above.  Nevertheless, as a social scientist myself, I hope that you will give consideration to the influence of the free software movement as such on the tools and best practices of distributed software development.
>
>While my academic work is on other topics, in over twenty years of participation in free, libre, and open source software (FLOSS) projects, my observation has been that both the *philosophy* and the
>*fact* of freedom in FLOSS development have strongly influenced distributed development practice.  This is true of both extremes of "open" free software projects like Emacs and in "closed" commercial products (I can't be more specific about the product, but the company is Amazon.com), as well as many projects of hybrid nature.  This influence has several channels, including tools, workflows, and attitudes of developers toward their work.  I hope your survey is designed to capture this influence where present, and if not, I suggest you take care not to overlook it when it is present in the responses to open-ended questions.
>
>Just-one-Dismal-Scientist's-opinion-ly y'rs,

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Richard Stallman]

GNU Emacs is part of the GNU Project, a project with the goal of
liberating the users from proprietary software.  That's a free
software goal which the discourse of "open source" does not recognize.
So it is very important for us to insist on recognition for our
movement.  People who would like our cooperation in their activities
should recognize who we are.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Deliberately removing opensourcesurveys.

Richard Stallman writes:

 > GNU Emacs is part of the GNU Project, a project with the goal of
 > liberating the users from proprietary software.

The problem you face, of course, is that "the users" are already free
to choose to use free software for almost all purposes, but they
stubbornly refuse to do so.  Instead, they by and large *choose*
proprietary software.  I understand your frustration with that simple
fact, but that frustration doesn't give you a license to put pressure
on outsiders or to tell project members who they may or may not
cooperate with.

 > That's a free software goal which the discourse of "open source"
 > does not recognize.

That's at best nonsense.  Even your bete noir Eric Raymond in private
espouses the spread of software freedom as such as the main goal
motivating his behavior -- he's not interested in improving business
profits, particularly, though he doesn't oppose that.  Certainly the
OSI avoids talking about "freedom" in the presence of limited
dictatorships (aka "corporate IT organizations") in hopes of getting
them to consent to freedom under the guise of efficiency.

But I personally don't like that pragmatism, and that is true of
*most* of my acquaintances who style themselves "open source
advocates".  We openly advocate both freedom for users and developers,
and efficiency and quality for businesses.  The discourse of open
source does admit the goal of liberation; it's just not the single
overriding goal.

 > So it is very important for us to insist on recognition for our
 > movement.

No question about that, even given the preceding caveat.  The public
face of open source (eg, the OSI), indeed does deliberately downplay
freedom.  My beef, on *this* list, is with your *phrasing* only.

 > People who would like our cooperation in their activities should
 > recognize who we are.

Nor that, as stated.  There is a certain moral obligation on them.

But even for your own purposes, I think telling the Emacs developers
not to participate in the survey unless the researchers agree to bias
their report (by academic standards, of course by your purely
movement-centric standard it's a removal of bias) is a tactical
mistake.  First, there's a good chance that no *movements* at all were
going to be mentioned in the report.  What good does "equal time" do
you then?  You want *special* treatment.  Why not ask for it,
politely?  The movement deserves it; everybody acknowledges that
without the free software movement, free software (according to the
definitions, equally validly called "open source software") would
almost surely be far less widespread.  And, as in this case, you'll
probably get it, but without appearing to apply any undue pressure.

I believe there is similar acknowledgment of the contribution of the
free software movement to the technologies associated with distributed
development, many of which have been most actively developed and used
in free software projects (which wouldn't exist without the movement).
And *that* is a real hook for the academic researcher, as I explained.

Second, telling academics what to include in their reports doesn't
work and is likely to backfire.  Dr. Carver was very polite, but at
this stage talk is cheap.  I'm sure the researchers will follow
through in their working paper, but what about the published versions?
Eg, in industrial organization economics at least, the usual term is
now "open source", not "free", and if a referee suggests using the
more common term, with maybe a footnote for the movement, so much for
good intentions.  And even the footnote may disappear later under
page-count pressure.  Don't you think explaining *why* the movement is
important to the history and current practice of distributed
development will be more effective in the long term than a basically
empty threat?

Third, if the Emacs developers (and other members of the free software
movement) actually do refuse to participate at your behest, the
results *will* be biased against the free software point of view, both
as seen by the political movement, and in the terms of academia.  This
is the worst possible outcome from your point of view, it seems to me.

Fourth, it's going to piss off a few Emacs developers, who didn't
realize that their right to freedom of association was subject to your
political needs.

You don't need *any* of that, do you?

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Antoine Levitt]

13/06/11 21:59, Richard Stallman
> Emacs is not intended to be open source, but rather free/libre
> software.  We have developed it for freedom's sake, and we want people
> to know this.  Referring to Emacs as "open source" tends to cover up
> our ethical values up behind a different view that only cites
> practical values.

Emacs has come a long way since the heyday of the GNU project. I expect
(but I might be wrong) that for many people involved in emacs nowadays,
the only thing left of this GNU commitment in emacs you take for granted
is annoying splash screens and papers to sign.

> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
> for more explanation of the difference between free software and open
> source.
>
> If you would like our participation in this study, please agree to
> give the free software movement equal mention in the study's report.

They don't want GNU's "official" participation in the survey, they just
want the largest number of open source developpers to participate. Their
study is about how open source devs work together as teams in
distributed environments. Emacs is open source (aside from being "part
of the GNU project"), therefore it makes sense to ask emacs devs for
their input on this. Philosophy has nothing to do with it.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[David Kastrup]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

> Deliberately removing opensourcesurveys.
>
> Richard Stallman writes:
>
>  > GNU Emacs is part of the GNU Project, a project with the goal of
>  > liberating the users from proprietary software.
>
> The problem you face, of course, is that "the users" are already free
> to choose to use free software for almost all purposes, but they
> stubbornly refuse to do so.  Instead, they by and large *choose*
> proprietary software.  I understand your frustration with that simple
> fact, but that frustration doesn't give you a license to put pressure
> on outsiders or to tell project members who they may or may not
> cooperate with.

I think you misunderstand the goal of free software.  The whole point is
to give people the power of choice.  Choosing to cripple themselves is a
valid choice.  You can try making it harder to get stuck in a bad choice
without return, and you can educate them about the consequences of their
choice.  But you can't take their choice.

Should it be legal to sell yourself into slavery?  There are some
choices you can take that effectively become indistinguishable from this
result, often through economic realities.  Education can help finding a
way out from such predicaments.

Free software offers a message of empowerment.  It is important that
people know about this message, in order not to be bereft of choice.

>  > That's a free software goal which the discourse of "open source"
>  > does not recognize.
>
> That's at best nonsense.  Even your bete noir Eric Raymond in private
> espouses the spread of software freedom as such as the main goal
> motivating his behavior -- he's not interested in improving business
> profits, particularly, though he doesn't oppose that.  Certainly the
> OSI avoids talking about "freedom" in the presence of limited
> dictatorships (aka "corporate IT organizations") in hopes of getting
> them to consent to freedom under the guise of efficiency.

That's like convincing GDR citizens of the virtues of a Western style
democracy by pointing out the availability of bananas on store shelves.
It worked, but is nothing to be particularly proud of.  In particular
since the economic viability of the banana availability depends on
dictatorships, both outright as well as economical, elsewhere.

You'll always find somebody willing to advertise some positive
sideeffects under whatever label.  But sideeffects, which have the
advantage of being actual tangible goods in contrast to ideals, tend to
fluctuate wildly.

The horse is what is pulling the carriage, but if you let the horse
decide where the carriage is to go, it will not be able to feed itself.

We have a lot of open source projects _failing_ or ailing in commercial
surroundings, when measured with commercial metrics.  That is because
our economy is _tuned_ towards proprietariness.  This is a failure of
the economy, not of free software.  It is a sign of hope that free
software can hold its stand in a hostile environment, but that does not
make an environment hostile to freedom of software users a good idea.

The message of the "Open Source philosophers" is that free software
failed to achieve its goals, and that Open Source is the way out.  They
don't understand why the FSF is still around, why people still support
its projects, and why Open Source projects fail and get bought out.

They leave free software in their wake, and that is good.  And some of
that free software would not have come into being without them.

But making a road takes more than having generous haphazards splashings
of asphalt everywhere, even though the splashings may actually be turned
into something useful.

> But I personally don't like that pragmatism, and that is true of
> *most* of my acquaintances who style themselves "open source
> advocates".  We openly advocate both freedom for users and developers,
> and efficiency and quality for businesses.  The discourse of open
> source does admit the goal of liberation; it's just not the single
> overriding goal.

If you want to get to warmer pastures on the Northern hemisphere, the
most efficient way is to go is South.  Straight.  Yes, it will work to
follow the sun whenever it is visible, actually quite great when you are
quite near to the start of your journey.  But the farther you get, the
more wasteful your path gets with regard to your goal.

Running after software maintainability and development models will yield
increasingly more erratic results the more free software becomes part of
the available toolset.

> I believe there is similar acknowledgment of the contribution of the
> free software movement to the technologies associated with distributed
> development, many of which have been most actively developed and used
> in free software projects (which wouldn't exist without the movement).
> And *that* is a real hook for the academic researcher, as I explained.

The point of freedom is not be a better hook.  In practice, that often
turns out to be the way how freedom propagates, but it is actually a
pity to trade it as a marketable good.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Lennart Borgman]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:14, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> I think you misunderstand the goal of free software.  The whole point is
> to give people the power of choice.

The point of free software is not a stable thing. It is not the same
today as in the beginning. It is defined both by the beginning and the
road. The road is shaped quite a lot of those on it. Some of us would
perhaps say "give people ability" as an equal important goal. Those
goals are not the same.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[David Kastrup]

Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:14, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think you misunderstand the goal of free software.  The whole point is
>> to give people the power of choice.
>
> The point of free software is not a stable thing.

It depends on whether you are talking about software that happens to end
up as free, or software that has been conceived in the course of the
free software movement as initiated by the Free Software Foundation.

The whole point of freedom is that it gives room for different
motivations.  But that does not make it a conglomerate of the different
motivations it admits.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Jambunathan K]

assert(advocacy != tyranny)

Much of your argument seems to be focussed on what Dr. Carver would
do. You would have a stronger argument if Dr. Carver *actually* ended up
relegating the emphasis on "Free Software" to the margins. This fact can
be verified only after the publication of the results and if the report
is made publicly accessible.

From what I see, Richard's polite and assertive refusal strongly
influenced Dr. Carver in to recognizing or atleast understanding the
subtle difference between "Free Software" and "Open Source".

Richard as a the "original owner" Emacs of the the moral authority to
assert and advice non-cooperation from like-minded friends and it may
not include you.

Btw, I am sure you would have read JS Mill's arguments On Liberty and
Utilitarianism. I will always buy the argument that Liberty (that
includes Liberty to make mistakes and Liberty to give shape to one's
passions - contrary to accepted societal norms) always results in
increasing the "sum total of overall goodness" than the true
"Utilitarianism" will ever manage to accomplish. Only that path of
Liberty is not for the fickle minded.

Much of the world is mistaken in to thinking that Utilitarianism and
Liberty are one and the same. I can only say that it is merely a black
magic.

ps: I am trying to understand where all this hatred to Richard's
advocacy comes from. Atleast in emacs-devel it sounds like an outright
civil war. Had this been a list which doesn't understand what Liberty
is, your mails (which I find is always confrontational) would end up
being filtered right at the point of distribution. Sorry if I am
provoking you.

Jambunathan K.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Sean Sieger]

Antoine Levitt <antoine.levitt@gmail.com> writes:

    Emacs has come a long way since the heyday of the GNU project. I expect
    (but I might be wrong) that for many people involved in emacs nowadays,
    the only thing left of this GNU commitment in emacs you take for granted
    is annoying splash screens and papers to sign.

Yes.  Wrong.

    They don't want GNU's "official" participation in the survey, they just
    want the largest number of open source developpers to participate. Their
    study is about how open source devs work together as teams in
    distributed environments. Emacs is open source (aside from being "part
    of the GNU project"), therefore it makes sense to ask emacs devs for
    their input on this. Philosophy has nothing to do with it.

Antoine that's a sloppy way of promoting the ghost of dissolution you
mention above.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 13:41, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:

> ps: I am trying to understand where all this hatred to Richard's
> advocacy comes from. Atleast in emacs-devel it sounds like an outright
> civil war.

I don't think there's any hatred to Richard's advocacy. But at the
moment he talks of "our collaboration" he's making the mistake of
believing that everyone who collaborates in free software does so
motivated by the goals of the free software movement. It's quite
possible to collaborate with Emacs (for example) just because you want
a better Emacs for your own selfish reasons.

    Juanma

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Antoine Levitt]

15/06/11 13:41, Sean Sieger
> Antoine Levitt <antoine.levitt@gmail.com> writes:
>
>     Emacs has come a long way since the heyday of the GNU project. I expect
>     (but I might be wrong) that for many people involved in emacs nowadays,
>     the only thing left of this GNU commitment in emacs you take for granted
>     is annoying splash screens and papers to sign.
>
> Yes.  Wrong.

Alright, I accept that.

>     They don't want GNU's "official" participation in the survey, they just
>     want the largest number of open source developpers to participate. Their
>     study is about how open source devs work together as teams in
>     distributed environments. Emacs is open source (aside from being "part
>     of the GNU project"), therefore it makes sense to ask emacs devs for
>     their input on this. Philosophy has nothing to do with it.
>
> Antoine that's a sloppy way of promoting the ghost of dissolution you
> mention above.

I don't promote anything. I just think that trying to force an agenda on
such a survey is essentially useless. It's like someone on the street
loudly complaining that the system of government is wrong to a pollster
asking who you're gonna vote on the next election. It's slightly awkward
to walk by, but I just have to cross the street and ignore it, which is
what I'm going to do.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Jambunathan K]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 13:41, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ps: I am trying to understand where all this hatred to Richard's
>> advocacy comes from. Atleast in emacs-devel it sounds like an outright
>> civil war.
>
> I don't think there's any hatred to Richard's advocacy. 

Ok.

> But at the moment he talks of "our collaboration" he's making the
> mistake of believing that

Instead of saying "making the mistake" I would have rather used "he is
hoping that his arguments and position are (atleast) being heard and
considered. How can any person listen when he is talking?".

> everyone who collaborates in free software does so motivated by the
> goals of the free software movement.  

> It's quite possible to collaborate with Emacs (for example) just
> because you want a better Emacs for your own selfish reasons.

I will take it from others and make it better for my own self ===>
Selfishness

I will take it from others, make it better and pay it forward ===>
!Selfishness. 

The latter position transcends Selfishness and is a pragmatic stand
favoring Sustainability. The Devil wants everything free. But once it
jumps in to the GPL bandwagon, it is as though the devil has surrendered
itself to be baptized.

Btw, Many of the Buddhist meditation centers operate on the "pay it
forward" model and have sustained themselves for thousands of years.

We may not agree with or follow Richard's idealistic view but that
doesn't mean that we should argue against him. Let's support his
position in the little way we can and show the naysayers their place.

That's all I want to say.

Let me summarize.

Juanma, you and I are not only selfish but we have "paid it
forward". That makes us "not selfish".

Jambunathan K.

>
>     Juanma
>
>

-- 

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Jambunathan K]

>> It's quite possible to collaborate with Emacs (for example) just
>> because you want a better Emacs for your own selfish reasons.

I would like to add few more lines.

Let us (by us, we mean all Emacs users) understand that we have
benefited from (or rather exploited) a good man's largesse. Let us also
understand that we have nothing to fear that the goodness we have come
to treasure and enjoy would continue to be available and wouldn't be
ever taken away in to manipulating us.

Let's accept our pettiness. 

Let's express our solidarity and gratitude to Richard by tolerating what
"we perceive as mistakes" and be kind enough to overlook them.

Jambunathan K.

-- 

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 15:19, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's express our solidarity and gratitude to Richard by tolerating what
> "we perceive as mistakes" and be kind enough to overlook them.

Amen to that.

Though, I'll add, my comment about Richard's "mistake" was neither a
complain nor a critique, just my personal explanation of his "our
collaboration" comment.

    Juanma

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Sean Sieger]

Antoine Levitt <antoine.levitt@gmail.com> writes:

    >     They don't want GNU's "official" participation in the survey, they just
    >     want the largest number of open source developpers to participate. Their
    >     study is about how open source devs work together as teams in
    >     distributed environments. Emacs is open source (aside from being "part
    >     of the GNU project"), therefore it makes sense to ask emacs devs for
    >     their input on this. Philosophy has nothing to do with it.
    >
    > Antoine that's a sloppy way of promoting the ghost of dissolution you
    > mention above.

    I don't promote anything. I just think that trying to force an agenda on
    such a survey is essentially useless. It's like someone on the street
    loudly complaining that the system of government is wrong to a pollster
    asking who you're gonna vote on the next election. It's slightly awkward
    to walk by, but I just have to cross the street and ignore it, which is
    what I'm going to do.

In both cases, the pollsters are investigating possibly private matters,
convictions---for one to ask for the allowance of some context to be
given in the interest of more precise expression is understandable, even
laudable.

The abysmal nature of language has produced readings of RMS as asserting
`pressure' and an `empty threat', and already in this short thread.

Describing yourself as you do in your analogy above, and initially when
you posited a dissolution from principled work to mere protocol, is a
promotion in this conversation.  It is no less valid than RMS's
promotions.

Move forward and promote each other's freedom of expression.  The
precision is the juice ... albeit flowing into the abyss.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Jambunathan K]

Antoinne

> I just think that trying to force an agenda on such a survey is
> essentially useless.

Richard has built the Free Software Movement much by living it and much
more by pure exhortation. Exhortation has it's value though it may not
work against one Antoinne Leavitt.

>  I just have to cross the street and ignore it

You cannot even live up to what you are just saying right now. By
writing the mail in first place you have only shown that your words
don't align with your actions == Lack Of Integrity.

Sorry,
Jambunathan K.



-- 

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Andreas Röhler]

>
> Let's express our solidarity and gratitude to Richard by tolerating what
> "we perceive as mistakes" and be kind enough to overlook them.
>
> Jambunathan K.
>

As far as personality is at stake, I agree.

Beside it's worth to reflect that position with respect to the fate of 
earlier liberation movements.

We must not repeat mistakes, if we may remember the outcome already.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Antoine Levitt]

15/06/11 15:47, Sean Sieger
> Antoine Levitt <antoine.levitt@gmail.com> writes:
>
>     >     They don't want GNU's "official" participation in the survey, they just
>     >     want the largest number of open source developpers to participate. Their
>     >     study is about how open source devs work together as teams in
>     >     distributed environments. Emacs is open source (aside from being "part
>     >     of the GNU project"), therefore it makes sense to ask emacs devs for
>     >     their input on this. Philosophy has nothing to do with it.
>     >
>     > Antoine that's a sloppy way of promoting the ghost of dissolution you
>     > mention above.
>
>     I don't promote anything. I just think that trying to force an agenda on
>     such a survey is essentially useless. It's like someone on the street
>     loudly complaining that the system of government is wrong to a pollster
>     asking who you're gonna vote on the next election. It's slightly awkward
>     to walk by, but I just have to cross the street and ignore it, which is
>     what I'm going to do.
>
> In both cases, the pollsters are investigating possibly private matters,
> convictions---for one to ask for the allowance of some context to be
> given in the interest of more precise expression is understandable, even
> laudable.

Have you actually read the survey? It's all about how, not why. Any
reason anyone might have for contributing to emacs is entirely
irrelevant. This is empty arguing at its finest, so can we please
recognize that everybody is agreeing with each other, answer the bloody
survey, let the poor man do his job, and move on?

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Antoine Levitt]

15/06/11 15:59, Jambunathan K
> Antoinne
>
>> I just think that trying to force an agenda on such a survey is
>> essentially useless.
>
> Richard has built the Free Software Movement much by living it and much
> more by pure exhortation. Exhortation has it's value though it may not
> work against one Antoinne Leavitt.

Certainly not on him, I have no idea who this guy is ;)

I have nothing against a good exhortation. In fact, I was pleasantly
surprised to find an interview of RMS in yesterday's "Le Monde". But we
are talking about a survey by an academic researcher which has a
completely different focus, and there's not much point in trying to
shift it.

>
>>  I just have to cross the street and ignore it
>
> You cannot even live up to what you are just saying right now. By
> writing the mail in first place you have only shown that your words
> don't align with your actions == Lack Of Integrity.

I agree with you on that, I just love trolling too much. And this thread
was so beautiful I couldn't resist. I couldn't even resist answering
this post. Shame on my Lack Of Integrity.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Lennart Borgman]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 16:06, Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> wrote:
>
>>
>> Let's express our solidarity and gratitude to Richard by tolerating what
>> "we perceive as mistakes" and be kind enough to overlook them.
>>
>> Jambunathan K.
>>
>
> As far as personality is at stake, I agree.
>
> Beside it's worth to reflect that position with respect to the fate of
> earlier liberation movements.
>
> We must not repeat mistakes, if we may remember the outcome already.

We are never, have never been and will never be, in a position where
we can avoid mistakes. We are just limited humans hopefully trying do
to our best towards others. So it kind of seems best to tolerate the
mistakes and learn... ;-)

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

David Kastrup writes:

 > I think you misunderstand the goal of free software.

I don't think so, but I think you have misunderstood much of what I
argued.  This is definitely not the forum for that discussion, though.

 > Running after software maintainability and development models will
 > yield increasingly more erratic results the more free software
 > becomes part of the available toolset.

I don't understand.  My personal belief is that use of more free
software is inducing certain changes in practice that will yield
increasing reliability.

 > The point of freedom is not be a better hook.  In practice, that often
 > turns out to be the way how freedom propagates, but it is actually a
 > pity to trade it as a marketable good.

That is exactly my complaint about Richard's post, a point you
evidently missed.  He tried to trade for something that was very
likely available for the asking, and *should* be available for the
asking, for several reasons.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Jambunathan K writes:

 > From what I see, Richard's polite and assertive refusal strongly
 > influenced Dr. Carver in to recognizing or atleast understanding
 > the subtle difference between "Free Software" and "Open Source".

I see no evidence in the thread for that conclusion, or against it for
that matter.  I have, however, conducted survey research and I assure
you that I would have responded quite as Dr. Carver did, no matter
what I believed or learned.  It pays to be polite, and it's satisfying
to correct one's mistakes, even if inadvertant.

IOW, a simple request would have been equally effective, I believe.

 > ps: I am trying to understand where all this hatred to Richard's
 > advocacy comes from.

Hatred for his advocacy, no.  I just believe in software freedom, and
I think Richard's us vs. them posting style is counterproductive and
mostly repels people who would otherwise be interested to learn more.
I realize it's a losing battle and in recent years have been better at
saying nothing, but this particular time I discovered a desire to
encourage this survey, and spoke up.

Personal antagonism, yes.  I'm sorry it shows.  I'm not a very nice
person in my mailing-list persona, which has a lot to do with it.
Let's leave it at that.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Richard Stallman]

    The problem you face, of course, is that "the users" are already free
    to choose to use free software for almost all purposes, but they
    stubbornly refuse to do so.

There is a reason for this: most of our community labels itself "open
source".  If it contributes to free programs, it does so while
ignoring or even opposing the idea that users shouldd to demand
freedom.  So we find that many users who have heard of "open source"
but never heard anyone argue for choosing programs according to their
respect for freedom.

This is why we need to work and push so that the free software
movement does not get hidden behind "open source."  When people want
our cooperation, I insist they recognize the free software movement's
existence.  I do this over and over, and as a result, a substantial
fraction of our users have at least heard of the free software
movement.

      Even your bete noir Eric Raymond in private
    espouses the spread of software freedom as such as the main goal
    motivating his behavior 

That is not what he told me.  In any case, his public statements
disparage the idea of software freedom, and that's where the effects
come from.  There are thousands of people in our community that
publicly denigrate the goal of freedom.  All that adds up to the
obstacle we need to surmount in order to teach users to want freedom.

      First, there's a good chance that no *movements* at all were
    going to be mentioned in the report.

"Open source" was going to be mentioned, so we want "free software" to
be mentioned too.

    Third, if the Emacs developers (and other members of the free software
    movement) actually do refuse to participate at your behest, the
    results *will* be biased against the free software point of view,

They will inevitably be biased, because the bias comes in with the
choice of questions.  It was reported here that they are only about
practical matters and totally ignore the ethical level.

If all you know about is a hammer, your survey will only count nails.

    Fourth, it's going to piss off a few Emacs developers, who didn't
    realize that their right to freedom of association was subject to your
    political needs.

I trust that all the GNU Emacs developers understood that speaking as
the head of the GNU Project does not mean I claim any power over any
individual.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Richard Stallman]

Your message is basically right, but one important point needs to be
corrected.

    >Thank you for the comments. Our apologies for not clearly
    >differentiating the two types of software. In analyzing the results
    >and reporting the data, we will make sure to take this into
    >account. For you information, we have sent the survey to other
    >projects that would fall into the category of Free Software.

    They are the same thing

As sets of software, free software and open source mostly overlap, but
they are not the same set.

Nearly all open source programs are free software, but exceptions 
do exist, because some open source licenses do not qualify as free.

In addition, when an executable is locked down by hardware so that
users cannot install their own version, it is not free.  Thus, the
executable of Linux in most Android phones is not free, even though
its source code is free.  Open source does not concern itself with
this issue.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Richard Stallman]

    I don't think there's any hatred to Richard's advocacy. But at the
    moment he talks of "our collaboration" he's making the mistake of
    believing that everyone who collaborates in free software does so
    motivated by the goals of the free software movement. It's quite
    possible to collaborate with Emacs (for example) just because you want
    a better Emacs for your own selfish reasons.

People are welcome to contribute to GNU Emacs for personal motives.
(They also have the right not to contribute, for personal motives.)
However, those personal motives, whatever they may be, do not alter
the goal of GNU Emacs as a project.  Freedom for users is that goal.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Richard Stallman]

    It's like someone on the street
    loudly complaining that the system of government is wrong to a pollster
    asking who you're gonna vote on the next election.

Exactly.  That person is aware that the poll will give a false picture
of where he stands, no matter how he answers.  Imagine a Green Party
supporter facing a survey that asks him to answer from 0 to 10, where
0 means Republican and 10 means Democrat, and that asks him to rate
various proposed methods to keep the price of fossil fuel low.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Richard Stallman]

    This is empty arguing at its finest, so can we please
    recognize that everybody is agreeing with each other, answer the bloody
    survey, let the poor man do his job, and move on?

Are we all agreeing with each other?  Do we have an obligation to
answer an "open source" survey just because a stranger asks us to?  I
don't think so.  I wouldn't spend a minute working on an activity that
carries the banner of "open source", because I can do other things in
that minute that will help the free software movement more.

On the other hand, to convince the people doing that activity to also
mention "free software" is an achievement for the movement.  That's
worth my time.  I might well agree to answer the survey in exchange
for that success.

    Have you actually read the survey? It's all about how, not why. Any
    reason anyone might have for contributing to emacs is entirely
    irrelevant.

The liberationist motives of GNU may be irrelevant to those questions,
but these motives are the basis for our work, and those questions are
not.

When I saw his message, I thought about what I could do to serve the
goal of users' freedom in relation to it.  I took action, and it looks
like I have partly succeeded.  Just answering his questions would have
been easy, but it wouldn't do the job.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Chong Yidong]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

> That's at best nonsense.  Even your bete noir Eric Raymond in private
> espouses the spread of software freedom as such as the main goal
> ...
> The public face of open source (eg, the OSI)

Open source?  Eric Raymond?  The OSI?

Let's party like it's 1999!

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Miles Bader]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> "Open source" was going to be mentioned, so we want "free software" to
> be mentioned too.

Incidentally, what's your opinion of the somewhat common term "FOSS" --
"Free and Open-Source Software"?

Thanks,

-Miles

-- 
"Nah, there's no bigger atheist than me.  Well, I take that back.
I'm a cancer screening away from going agnostic and a biopsy away
from full-fledged Christian."  [Adam Carolla]

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Miles Bader]

Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com> writes:
> Open source?  Eric Raymond?  The OSI?
>
> Let's party like it's 1999!

Believe it or not, ESR yet lives!

-miles

-- 
Generous, adj. Originally this word meant noble by birth and was rightly
applied to a great multitude of persons. It now means noble by nature and is
taking a bit of a rest.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Miles Bader]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> On the other hand, to convince the people doing that activity to also
> mention "free software" is an achievement for the movement.

I agree, but it seems a very good idea to be as polite as possible
about these things, as it's very likely they're not making an
intentional decision to omit Free Software.  Saying something like "I
won't answer your survey unless you change it" seems unnecessarily
combative, at least as an initial response.

-Miles

-- 
Kilt, n. A costume sometimes worn by Scotchmen [sic] in America and Americans
in Scotland.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Paul Eggert]

On 06/15/11 21:22, Miles Bader wrote:
> what's your opinion of the somewhat common term "FOSS" --
> "Free and Open-Source Software"?

The acronyn "FLOSS" (for "Free/Libre and Open Source Software
Development") is also common among academic researchers
studying the field.  There are dozens (maybe hundreds) of
refereed papers published on the topic.  Presumably
Carver et al. want to add to this list, and I expect their
papers will do a good job covering free/libre software,
now that they have a heads-up from RMS.

For recent and potential future work in this booming area of
academia, please see:

Krowston K, Wei K, Howison J, Wiggins A.
Free/Libre Open Source Software development: what we know and what we do not know.
ACM Computing Surveys 2010
<http://flossplanet.info/system/files/CrowstonFLOSSReviewPaperPreprint.pdf>

Scacchi W.
The future of research in free/open source software development.
Proc FoSER '10
<http://www.ics.uci.edu/~wscacchi/Papers/New/FoSER-Scacchi-2010.pdf>

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Miles Bader]

Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> writes:
> The acronyn "FLOSS" (for "Free/Libre and Open Source Software
> Development") is also common among academic researchers
> studying the field.

Of course that has the disadvantage of yielding mostly hits for dental
hygiene products when one googles... :]

-Miles

-- 
gravity a demanding master ... soft soft snow

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Jambunathan K]

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>> On the other hand, to convince the people doing that activity to also
>> mention "free software" is an achievement for the movement.
>
> I agree, but it seems a very good idea to be as polite as possible
> about these things, as it's very likely they're not making an
> intentional decision to omit Free Software.  

Why shouldn't the researcher choose his words to suit the style of the
person he is talking to. It is a publicly documented fact that Richard
loves or prefers certain words (== way of thinking) in preference to the
others. It seems to me to be an error of omission from the researcher
because he hasn't simply done his due diligence either in the Choice Of
the Mailing List or the Choice of the Subject. (Sorry Mr.Carver)

> Saying something like "I won't answer your survey unless you change
> it" seems unnecessarily combative, at least as an initial response.

assert(unpalatable != combative). 

For christ's sake, Have we never had out Mamas shout at us?

"Change the style, Be Polite and get more supporters", seems an empty
argument for political correctness, I believe. 

Richard has come a long way in his campaign and for the intelligent
person that he is, would have already come to either of the following
conclusions -

1. being polite or not polite makes no difference to the campaign.
2. being "combative" is actually mildly favorable, contrary to mass
   opinion,

I believe nobody has asked Richard why he gets so upset when certain
cursed words are put forth to him. That's the only right approach to
take rather than take a moral high ground and advise him to be polite.

I personally believe that being rude has it's uses. Being politically
correct and going by the book is for the meek who serve the world and
not who desire to change it.

"Whatever works and Whatever does no harm" should be the motto. Let's
not reform the reformer but put our wieght behind him.

The next time some one pops up in this list why not it be one of us (who
are too proud of our polite demeanour) frontend the allegedly impolite
man.

ps: I will not make any more posts on this subject.

Jambunathan K.

>
> -Miles

-- 

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[David Kastrup]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

> Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com> writes:
>> Open source?  Eric Raymond?  The OSI?
>>
>> Let's party like it's 1999!
>
> Believe it or not, ESR yet lives!

But ESR is a long behind face of OSI.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 16.06.2011 01:36, schrieb Richard Stallman:
>      It's like someone on the street
>      loudly complaining that the system of government is wrong to a pollster
>      asking who you're gonna vote on the next election.
>
> Exactly.  That person is aware that the poll will give a false picture
> of where he stands, no matter how he answers.  Imagine a Green Party
> supporter facing a survey that asks him to answer from 0 to 10, where
> 0 means Republican and 10 means Democrat, and that asks him to rate
> various proposed methods to keep the price of fossil fuel low.
>

Hi Richard,

think that's exactly the matter at stake when such a survey shows up. 
One might be still more paranoid to be realistic here IMHO.

Nonetheless please permit a remark still at the complex matter which 
stirred up this thread:

When the first modern declaration of human rights showed up in french 
revolution of 1789 it was closely followed by guillotines.

Unfortunatly both evenements are linked together and history tends to 
repeat this series up to the present wars. I'm not going to question the 
sincerity of this men declaring human rights at this time BTW. Nor do I 
question your sincerity and even your reasoning. Your are perfectly 
right on a logical level of expression.

The issue which I have with words like freedom in real politics is: the 
more holy the cause, the more victims are permitted.

So I have some favor for the wording "Open Source" not with respect to a 
precise license politics or specific institute, but because it's not 
that pathetic, doesn't that have that smell.

Cheers,

Andreas

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Jambunathan K]

> When the first modern declaration of human rights showed up in french
> revolution of 1789 it was closely followed by guillotines.

> So I have some favor for the wording "Open Source" not with respect to
> a precise license politics or specific institute, but because it's not
> that pathetic, doesn't that have that smell.

While we are discussing about making the words culturally netural -
Andreas here is talking here from a French perspective - 

,----
| “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the
| concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free
| beer.”
`----

let me add my 2 paise from an Indian perspective.

As an Indian, I have never understood what the meaning of the phrase
"free beer" is.

A typical (layman) Indian is averse and even a stranger to
drinking. Furthermore, Gandhi himself favored Prohibition and the
distribution of liquor is even state-controlled in few of the states.

So the phrasing "free beer" makes no sense to me at all.

Even if there be reasons to retain the "free beer" phraseology (say,
from purely historical perspective) , I recommend that a footnote or a
reference be provided (elsewhere - Wikipedia?) where the meaning of the
above metaphor is better clarified.

As a lay person, I better relate to metaphors (as could be seen in my
other posts)

Hope my submission is considered,
Jambunathan K.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Miles Bader]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>>> Let's party like it's 1999!
>>
>> Believe it or not, ESR yet lives!
>
> But ESR is a long behind face of OSI.

Sure, I agree -- so much so that I'm always vaguely startled to see him
pop up every once in a while.  It's like a ghost from the distance past...

-Miles

-- 
gravity a demanding master ... soft soft snow

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 16.06.2011 08:36, schrieb Jambunathan K:
>
>> When the first modern declaration of human rights showed up in french
>> revolution of 1789 it was closely followed by guillotines.
>
>> So I have some favor for the wording "Open Source" not with respect to
>> a precise license politics or specific institute, but because it's not
>> that pathetic, doesn't that have that smell.
>
> While we are discussing about making the words culturally netural -
> Andreas here is talking here from a French perspective -

Hi  Jambunathan,

referring to historical events doesn't mean adopting it's perspective.
As we are able to read books about history, we may take that experience 
to a certain extent, even if not witnessed personally.

Also you can't  refer to events neglecting it's real existing personage, 
it's sex, location, political or religious orientation - which doesn't 
hinder abstraction and relation.

The culturally neutral speech whould require the men stripped from it's 
history and heritance. That would be an in-human requiring.

>
> ,----
> | “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the
> | concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free
> | beer.”
> `----
>
> let me add my 2 paise from an Indian perspective.
>
> As an Indian, I have never understood what the meaning of the phrase
> "free beer" is.
>
> A typical (layman) Indian is averse and even a stranger to
> drinking. Furthermore, Gandhi himself favored Prohibition and the
> distribution of liquor is even state-controlled in few of the states.
>
> So the phrasing "free beer" makes no sense to me at all.

Think you simply are not saying the truth here.  You should be well 
aware reading words from other cultural contextes and understand it's 
meaning. And you are.

Think about.

BTW should you feel humiliated by colonial occupation history, you can't 
pay that back to people how are against colonialism.  Colonisation was 
not an act decided by western people, but by the oppressing ruling 
powers.  Also it's not western specific. Occupation took place in all 
parts of the world AFAIK.

Beside from this more basic considerations, it seems worth reflecting if 
"beer" is the best relation to do at this place.

Cheers,

Andreas


>
> Even if there be reasons to retain the "free beer" phraseology (say,
> from purely historical perspective) , I recommend that a footnote or a
> reference be provided (elsewhere - Wikipedia?) where the meaning of the
> above metaphor is better clarified.
>
> As a lay person, I better relate to metaphors (as could be seen in my
> other posts)
>



> Jambunathan K.
>

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[cp]

On 06/16/2011 08:36 AM, Jambunathan K wrote:
>> >  When the first modern declaration of human rights showed up in french
>> >  revolution of 1789 it was closely followed by guillotines.

Ironically,  when RMS comes in France to explain Free Software to 
French, he says most of the time: "I can explain free software in three 
words. Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. Everything Sarkozy hates."

I agree with him :) Meaning, never forget who you are to succeed. 
Guillotines no longer exist in France, but French kept their values with 
La Marseillaise.

http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/La_Marseillaise

>> >  So I have some favor for the wording "Open Source" not with respect to
>> >  a precise license politics or specific institute, but because it's not
>> >  that pathetic, doesn't that have that smell.
> While we are discussing about making the words culturally netural -
> Andreas here is talking here from a French perspective -

Andreas forgot to say that most hackers in France are talking about 
Logiciel Libre (meaning Free Software), only businessmen are using the 
wording of  "open source" there, in the aim to sell some logiciel 
privatif with Free/Libre software, plus some windows users who do not 
know the meaning. The fact is that THIS thread is US-centric, and I 
support RMS on his feedback.

Just my two cents :-)

-- 
Support free software! Join FSF: 
https://my.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom?referrer=4574

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 16.06.2011 11:57, schrieb cp@canaxis.org:
> On 06/16/2011 08:36 AM, Jambunathan K wrote:
>>> > When the first modern declaration of human rights showed up in french
>>> > revolution of 1789 it was closely followed by guillotines.
>
> Ironically, when RMS comes in France to explain Free Software to French,
> he says most of the time: "I can explain free software in three words.
> Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. Everything Sarkozy hates."
>
> I agree with him :) Meaning, never forget who you are to succeed.
> Guillotines no longer exist in France, but French kept their values with
> La Marseillaise.
>
> http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/La_Marseillaise

Thanks pointing at that. Unfortunatly very recent politics demonstrates 
it's neither a joke nor some antiquity.


>
>>> > So I have some favor for the wording "Open Source" not with respect to
>>> > a precise license politics or specific institute, but because it's not
>>> > that pathetic, doesn't that have that smell.
>> While we are discussing about making the words culturally netural -
>> Andreas here is talking here from a French perspective -
>
> Andreas forgot to say that most hackers in France are talking about
> Logiciel Libre (meaning Free Software), only businessmen are using the
> wording of "open source" there, in the aim to sell some logiciel
> privatif with Free/Libre software, plus some windows users who do not
> know the meaning. The fact is that THIS thread is US-centric, and I
> support RMS on his feedback.

So do I. Even when contradicting :-) Finally the truth is a process.

What about a hypothetical, in my eyes more measured response:

"Please note: Emacs focus in not to be just open source, but rather 
free/libre software.  We have developed it for freedom's sake, and we 
want people to know this."

As for the following passage it makes me headache in various respects.
"Open source" doesn't contrast with GPL practical aspects at all IMHO. 
The GPL is of great practicability, also from a pure  technical aspect. 
(Which again doesn't exclude questioning some stipulations...)
People may well choose GPL for very practical reasons.

As for the "ethical values" --otherwise only stressed in churches that 
often-- I'd prefer it not that outspoken, rather realising it, which in 
so far is done by Emacs developers.

Cheers,

Andreas


>
> Just my two cents :-)
>

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[David Kastrup]

Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> writes:

> "Open source" doesn't contrast with GPL practical aspects at all
> IMHO. The GPL is of great practicability, also from a pure technical
> aspect. (Which again doesn't exclude questioning some stipulations...)
> People may well choose GPL for very practical reasons.

People may choose to eat hosts or burn furniture for very practical
reasons, but that's not a particularly meaningful aspect for explaining
their purpose.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:
 >     The problem you face, of course, is that "the users" are already free
 >     to choose to use free software for almost all purposes, but they
 >     stubbornly refuse to do so.
 > 
 > There is a reason for this: most of our community labels itself "open
 > source".

That's the first time I've heard you refer to open source as "our
community".  That is a welcome change!

 > If it contributes to free programs, it does so while ignoring or
 > even opposing the idea that users should to demand freedom.

This is not true of those who label themselves "open source" advocates
who I personally mingle with.  For them, "open source" is simply "free
software" that does not require advocacy of software freedom as the
overriding goal, but rather admits many goals (including software
freedom as such) in various mixtures of importance.  But people who
deprecate software freedom would definitely be uncomfortable with most
of them.

 > This is why we need to work and push so that the free software
 > movement does not get hidden behind "open source."

I acknowledge that, in this thread as well.  But there's a difference
between "pushing" and "being pushy".

 >       Even your bete noir Eric Raymond in private
 >     espouses the spread of software freedom as such as the main goal
 >     motivating his behavior 
 > 
 > That is not what he told me.

What did he tell you?  Perhaps that his goal is the spread of free
software?

 > In any case, his public statements disparage the idea of software
 > freedom, and that's where the effects come from.  There are
 > thousands of people in our community that publicly denigrate the
 > goal of freedom.  All that adds up to the obstacle we need to
 > surmount in order to teach users to want freedom.

That would be very nice, but I think it's unrealistic to suppose that
"opinion leaders" are moving all that opinion.  There are objective
factors that are more important.  IMO, the biggest obstacle is that
(as far as most people are concerned) you've already won.  That is,
with the success of GNU/Linux, there is a viable option for those who
want to Just Say No.  This is a real freedom, although it is not the
software freedom the movement is aimed at.  And for most people, it's
plenty.

You can say (more politely, of course), "People!  Wake up!  You're
missing the point!"  But it's not easy to rebut the response, "no,
you're missing our point -- we've got what we need!"

 > They will inevitably be biased, because the bias comes in with the
 > choice of questions.  It was reported here that they are only about
 > practical matters and totally ignore the ethical level.
 > 
 > If all you know about is a hammer, your survey will only count nails.

Sure.  But that's not bias in the scientific sense, that's focus.
Research done on the ethics would be a different project, and (from
the researcher's and granting agency's point of view) needs its own
funding.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Andreas Röhler writes:

 > As for the "ethical values" --otherwise only stressed in churches that 
 > often-- I'd prefer it not that outspoken, rather realising it, which in 
 > so far is done by Emacs developers.

The problem is that "there exists free software you may choose" is not
the same thing as "software freedom", which means "any software you
may choose is free".  The former is what the naive will see when they
look at Emacs, not the latter.  Especially if they're running on
Windows or the NS port on Mac....

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Stephen J. Turnbull writes:
 > Richard Stallman writes:

 >  > There is a reason for this: most of our community labels itself "open
 >  > source".
 > 
 > That's the first time I've heard you refer to open source as "our
 > community".  That is a welcome change!

Excuse me.  I meant to write "refer to anything associated with open
source as part of 'our community'".

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Randal L. Schwartz]

>>>>> "Miles" == Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

Miles> Of course that has the disadvantage of yielding mostly hits for dental
Miles> hygiene products when one googles... :]

Indeed.  One New York Dental Group automatically retweets nearly every
tweet I make about my "FLOSS Weekly" podcast.  {chuckle}

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[David Kastrup]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

> Richard Stallman writes:
>  >     The problem you face, of course, is that "the users" are already free
>  >     to choose to use free software for almost all purposes, but they
>  >     stubbornly refuse to do so.
>  > 
>  > There is a reason for this: most of our community labels itself "open
>  > source".
>
> That's the first time I've heard you refer to open source as "our
> community".  That is a welcome change!

RMS is not "most of our community", and most particularly not that part
of our community with bad labelling habits.

> This is not true of those who label themselves "open source" advocates
> who I personally mingle with.  For them, "open source" is simply "free
> software" that does not require advocacy of software freedom as the
> overriding goal, but rather admits many goals (including software
> freedom as such) in various mixtures of importance.

Appreciating the benefits of freedom is not a substitute for
appreciating freedom, it is a _reason_ for appreciating freedom.  The
benefits are tangible, freedom isn't.

The side effects of a philosophy are no substitute for the philosophy.

The usual mantra for Open Source is "I like Open Source because it leads
to software with fewer bugs/more features."  If the metric is software
with fewer bugs, then it would be logical to use proprietary software as
long as it has fewer bugs/more features.  One can take a look at
involved developers and available manhours and other resources on a
timeline and decide "given the available information, the free version
of this software will not have fewer bugs/more features in the next ten
years.  So I won't use it or contribute to it."

That's a valid stance, but not really worth labelling as a philosophy,
because it is reactive, not proactive.  Adopting it does not change
anything.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Richard Stallman]

    I agree, but it seems a very good idea to be as polite as possible
    about these things, as it's very likely they're not making an
    intentional decision to omit Free Software.  Saying something like "I
    won't answer your survey unless you change it" seems unnecessarily
    combative, at least as an initial response.

You're right, as a general point.  However, since we're talking here
about tone, please note that the tone I used was more gentle than "I
won't answer your survey unless you change it."


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Richard Stallman]

FLOSS, for "Free/libre and open source software", is a reasonable term
to use to talk about both the free software movement and the open
source camp.  A good treatment will also state what each of the two
camps stands for, since most readers are misinformed about both.

FOSS puts us at a disadvantage because "open source" is more visible
than "free software".  Adding "/libre" balances that out.



-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Executive summary:

I do not advocate changing the free software movement's message.  I
advocate knowing your audience, and tuning the presentation of the
message to the audience you are facing at any given time.

David Kastrup writes:
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

 >> That's the first time I've heard you refer to open source as "our
 >> community".  That is a welcome change!

[N.B. I corrected myself later; "our community" cannot be taken to
refer to all of the open source community, as implied by the phrasing
above.  David is not responsible for any misunderstanding my poor
phrasing may have caused, but I'm going to respond to his words as
written.]

 > RMS is not "most of our community", and most particularly not that part
 > of our community with bad labelling habits.

You're missing the point, which is that of all human beings not
currently in the free software movement, the most likely-to-join group
is probably the open source community.  Sure, some are openly anti-
free-software-movement, but most are not.  By injecting the free
software movement into that community, the goals and programs of the
movement get wider, more personal, and IMO more persuasive dissemination.

 > > This is not true of those who label themselves "open source" advocates
 > > who I personally mingle with.  For them, "open source" is simply "free
 > > software" that does not require advocacy of software freedom as the
 > > overriding goal, but rather admits many goals (including software
 > > freedom as such) in various mixtures of importance.
 > 
 > Appreciating the benefits of freedom is not a substitute for
 > appreciating freedom, it is a _reason_ for appreciating freedom.  The
 > benefits are tangible, freedom isn't.

What don't you understand about "software freedom as such"?

If what you mean is, "Give me software freedom, or give me death!",
OK, but the basic fact of life in any group larger than one is that
there are many rights, they conflict, and not everybody is going to
agree with that unidimensional philosophy as a solution.

There is a group in society (a subset of "hackers") for whom your
unidimensional philosophy is very attractive.  For most people, it is
not, because software freedom is not on their radar; software itself
is only barely perceived, in the form of "hardware upgradable by
internet".[1]  It greatly differs from the rights of the U.S.[2]
Declaration of Independence (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness) -- these are universally desired (for oneself, anyway :-( ).

It also differs from the freedoms of the U.S. Bill of Rights (speech,
association, etc).  While not actually valued by *everybody*, a large
minority will insist on them because they are the essential foundation
of democratic politics, which is one (perhaps the only known) way to
reliably[3] achieve legitimate government, which is the only reliable
way known to protect individual rights and freedoms (though also known
to be reliably imperfect).

This is a serious philosophical problem for the movement.  The
movement's propaganda equates "software freedom" with "freedom of
speech", but in fact they belong to different classes.

 > The usual mantra for Open Source is "I like Open Source because it
 > leads to software with fewer bugs/more features."

That's only part of it.  "Avoids lock-in" is an essential part of the
mantra, and avoiding lock-in (in a general sense, including permitting
do-it-yourself improvements, which is what open source means by
"avoids lock-in") is close to "software freedom as such", once you
unpack the requirements for "do-it-yourself improvements".  (What's
missing is the right to redistribute, of course.)  And of course this
assumes that we concede to RMS the right to define "software freedom".
Many of my friends do not, and use less stringent definitions (ie, not
requiring redistributability).  It is fair for you to complain that
this is not "true" software freedom, but that misses the point.  These
folks are "almost there"!  It seems likely to me that they are fairly
easy to persuade to accept the full definition.  (And of course the
formal definition of "open source" is pretty much indistinguishable
from "free", although as Richard pointed out earlier the OSI and the
FSF have disgreed on the applicability to certain licenses.)

Please stop merely repeating the FSF propaganda about open source, and
deal with the phenomenon as it is: diverse.  You cannot win the hearts
of my friends otherwise.

So, is there anything that you still don't understand about "that is
not true of those whom I personally mingle with"?

 > If the metric is software with fewer bugs,

For the group I am talking about, for a non-negligible minority the
metric is availability of free software with required capabilities[4],
defined as "I can download it or build it myself[5], perhaps based on
an existing project."  For a larger, quite substantial, minority, the
caveat "and a specific product is not required by my employer and/or
clients" is added.

What you have written is considered a mortal insult by the group I am
talking about.  Do you really want to offend them?  They don't need a
wake-up call.  They know what the issue is, they just currently
disagree with the free software movement's stance.  It seems to me
that this group would be easily swayed by experiencing adversity
imposed by proprietary software, or possibly well-targeted persuasion
by the movement.

 > ["I want software with fewer bugs and will use, maybe contribute
 > to, software that gives me that" is] a valid stance, but not really
 > worth labelling as a philosophy,

Of course it's a philosophy, and worth labelling as such.  It's very
generally applicable, and it's called "(individual) utilitarianism" or
"economism" and similar.  However, I don't know anybody who actually
adheres to it outside of Ayn Rand novels, and I'm not sure any more
that even John Galt really did.


Footnotes: 
[1]  At least here in Japan, people talk about "turning on the
Internet" in lieu of "turning on the PC and connecting to the 'Net".

[2]  This is what I am familiar with; I am not going to pretend to
know about any further rights and freedoms that other cultures may
insist upon, although I acknowledge the near certainty that my list is
incomplete.

[3]  Though few engineers would recognize a 75% or so success rate as
"reliable". :-)

[4]  This is not a loophole for minor "nice features".  An example
requirement would be "httpd *that does SSL*."  YMMV, but people I know
are pretty strict about this.

[5]  For many this is a null set.  They're web designers, etc, and
can't build software at all outside of Javascript and CSS.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[David Kastrup]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

> You're missing the point, which is that of all human beings not
> currently in the free software movement, the most likely-to-join group
> is probably the open source community.

If the free software movement masks itself as the open source community,
that group has nowhere to go.

> Sure, some are openly anti-free-software-movement, but most are not.
> By injecting the free software movement into that community, the goals
> and programs of the movement get wider, more personal, and IMO more
> persuasive dissemination.

But there is no point for the free software movement to inject the open
source movement into the open source community.

Open source is the attempt to turn free software into good business
sense.  But our economy is built around ways for restraining cooperation
and selling limited access to it.  The vast majority of open source
endeavours end up as failures according to their own metrics.  Creating
free software is rarely good business sense, harvesting it may be.  The
GPL creates a niche where creating/extending a bit of free software in
return for harvesting a lot may make business sense.  Because business
will only cooperate at gunpoint.  Gunpoint makes for limited ecosystems,
but it does not make anybody believe in any values.  But business only
believes in shareholder value, anyway.

Since the economy is built around taxing any flow of cooperation and
knowledge, free software, which is designed to be impervious to damming,
is bound to fail as a business model component in a lot of settings.

The Open Source movement counts this as a deficiency of the software,
the Free Software movement counts this as a deficiency of the system.

Selling the motives behind Free Software off as something different may
lead to short-lived enthusiasm but will ultimately end in
disappointment and disillusionment.

The GPL is the consequence of such disillusionment.  There is no point
in restarting the cycle.

> If what you mean is, "Give me software freedom, or give me death!",

"or I will create it myself." is the actual credo of the free software
movement.  "or something else." that of the open source movement since
they focus on secondary concerns.

> OK, but the basic fact of life in any group larger than one is that
> there are many rights, they conflict, and not everybody is going to
> agree with that unidimensional philosophy as a solution.

That's not a problem of the philosophy.  If your cake is frequently too
salty, do you try to fix this by diluting the salt in the cupboard with
sugar in order to be able to continue using the same recipe?

> Please stop merely repeating the FSF propaganda about open source, and
> deal with the phenomenon as it is: diverse.  You cannot win the hearts
> of my friends otherwise.

Why win their hearts with false pretense?  One won't be able to keep
them that way.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Jambunathan K]

Summary: I take the example of "embedded companies" and argue that
"ability to build cheap, reliable and quick prototypes" is one of the
determining factors why these companies favor FLOSS kernels.

I seek clarification on "right to redistribute" against "contractual
obligation to redistribute modified source".

I close with a remark that Open Hardware would tilt the camp in favor of
FLOSS camp and that there is category-killer waiting to be made.

(I have enjoyed the discussions so far and understood few crucial
things. Thanks for your patience.)

Please read on.


> Executive summary:
>
> I do not advocate changing the free software movement's message.  I
> advocate knowing your audience, and tuning the presentation of the
> message to the audience you are facing at any given time.
>
> David Kastrup writes:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:
>
>  >> That's the first time I've heard you refer to open source as "our
>  >> community".  That is a welcome change!
>
> [N.B. I corrected myself later; "our community" cannot be taken to
> refer to all of the open source community, as implied by the phrasing
> above.  David is not responsible for any misunderstanding my poor
> phrasing may have caused, but I'm going to respond to his words as
> written.]
>
>  > RMS is not "most of our community", and most particularly not that part
>  > of our community with bad labelling habits.
>
> You're missing the point, which is that of all human beings not
> currently in the free software movement, the most likely-to-join group
> is probably the open source community.  Sure, some are openly anti-
> free-software-movement, but most are not.  By injecting the free
> software movement into that community, the goals and programs of the
> movement get wider, more personal, and IMO more persuasive dissemination.
>
>  > > This is not true of those who label themselves "open source" advocates
>  > > who I personally mingle with.  For them, "open source" is simply "free
>  > > software" that does not require advocacy of software freedom as the
>  > > overriding goal, but rather admits many goals (including software
>  > > freedom as such) in various mixtures of importance.
>  > 
>  > Appreciating the benefits of freedom is not a substitute for
>  > appreciating freedom, it is a _reason_ for appreciating freedom.  The
>  > benefits are tangible, freedom isn't.
>
> What don't you understand about "software freedom as such"?
>
> If what you mean is, "Give me software freedom, or give me death!",
> OK, but the basic fact of life in any group larger than one is that
> there are many rights, they conflict, and not everybody is going to
> agree with that unidimensional philosophy as a solution.
>
> There is a group in society (a subset of "hackers") for whom your
> unidimensional philosophy is very attractive.  For most people, it is
> not, because software freedom is not on their radar; software itself
> is only barely perceived, in the form of "hardware upgradable by
> internet".[1]  It greatly differs from the rights of the U.S.[2]
> Declaration of Independence (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
> Happiness) -- these are universally desired (for oneself, anyway :-( ).
>
> It also differs from the freedoms of the U.S. Bill of Rights (speech,
> association, etc).  While not actually valued by *everybody*, a large
> minority will insist on them because they are the essential foundation
> of democratic politics, which is one (perhaps the only known) way to
> reliably[3] achieve legitimate government, which is the only reliable
> way known to protect individual rights and freedoms (though also known
> to be reliably imperfect).
>
> This is a serious philosophical problem for the movement.  The
> movement's propaganda equates "software freedom" with "freedom of
> speech", but in fact they belong to different classes.

Somehow I think that the last paragraph is incomplete.

Could you please clarify to what class "software freedom" rightfully
belongs in the way you see it?


>  > The usual mantra for Open Source is "I like Open Source because it
>  > leads to software with fewer bugs/more features."
>
> That's only part of it.  "Avoids lock-in" is an essential part of the
> mantra, and avoiding lock-in (in a general sense, including permitting
> do-it-yourself improvements, which is what open source means by
> "avoids lock-in") is close to "software freedom as such", 

While we are talking of practical aspects of FLOSS that appeal to
commercial vendor let me add this:

GNU/Linux is becoming particularly popular to build sophisticated
embedded systems like Ethernet Switches, Wireless Routers etc etc. Over
the course of the years I see that embedded hardware vendors have moved
from proprietary real-time environments to NetBSD/FreeBSD and lately to
GNU/Linux (as recent as 2.6.x).

Embedded market is a thriving market and venture capitalists are willing
to infuse huge sums of money in to the right startups.

To such enterprises, the "ability to build quick prototypes" (aka
"reference models") with minimal investments is quite appealing. These
companies use a stripped version of one of the stock linux distribution
as a base for the "firmware kernel".

These companies unabashedly tinker with the kernel in "in the face"
manner and build the firmware. 

They also provide drivers in the kernel and distribute it alongside the
vanilla kernel. The distribution of driver and their apparent upgrades
is a mere posturing by these companies to "express solidarity with the
GNU/Linux" system. In truth, these drivers do not exploit the full
funcitonality of the underlying hardware and are often very poor
substitutes for their "commercial" linux offerings (Think HP and IBM
here). They use such cheap techniques as limiting the hardware address
space etc etc.

(I am continuing the above argument in the next paragraph. Read on)

> once you unpack the requirements for "do-it-yourself improvements".
> (What's missing is the right to redistribute, of course.)  

I know for sure these companies do not make available their firmware -
remember the firmware contains fairly good portion of modified vanilla
Linux stack - in a publicly accessible manner. They are happy with
hypocritic posturing that making the drivers available suffices.

Now the crux of my question is:

Speaking only of companies (which are registered legally entities), I am
confused by whether these companies are doing the right thing (in a
legal sense). 

Does GPL lays emphasis on the right to distribute or a (mandatory
contractual) obligation to redistribute? Note the subtle difference -
the right to distribute would mean the right to not distribute as well.

Law could be lax on individual users should it also be lax on such
enterprises, which in my view, playi the devil and actually "hoard and
piggback" on community produce and accumulate humongous private fortune.

The onservation I am making above is not an imagined one. I am talking
of companies that I had earlier worked with. Consultants in this list
who closely work with the Silicon Valley companies can vouch also for
veracity of this statement.

> And of course this assumes that we concede to RMS the right to define
> "software freedom".  

Some one has to define it. Let us assume that RMS is playing the role of
"Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution". (I am
borrowing the term used widely in the Indian context)

> Many of my friends do not, and use less stringent definitions (ie, not
> requiring redistributability).  It is fair for you to complain that
> this is not "true" software freedom, but that misses the point.  These
> folks are "almost there"!

I have highlighted aspects of "requiring redistributability" in the
above para and contrasted that against "right to redistributability".

> It seems likely to me that they are fairly easy to persuade to accept
> the full definition.  

I don't think the embedded companies with VC backings - in some sense,
this group represent far right wing of capitalist spectrum - would agree
to it and even actively oppose it. (By exposing the firmware they might
also be disclosing "key aspects" of how their hardware is designed and
functions. This is threat to life of these companies. The first thing
that these companies do is to register patents for their design even
before a prototype is built)

I believe Free Software makes for a stronger case in conjunction with
Free/Libre Hardware Designs. I think a "Category Killer" in the Open
Hardware is all that is needed to tilt most of the "Open Source" camp in
favor of "Free" camp.

> (And of course the formal definition of "open source" is pretty much
> indistinguishable from "free", although as Richard pointed out earlier
> the OSI and the FSF have disgreed on the applicability to certain
> licenses.)
>
> Please stop merely repeating the FSF propaganda about open source, and
> deal with the phenomenon as it is: diverse.  You cannot win the hearts
> of my friends otherwise.
>
> So, is there anything that you still don't understand about "that is
> not true of those whom I personally mingle with"?
>
>  > If the metric is software with fewer bugs,
>
> For the group I am talking about, for a non-negligible minority the
> metric is availability of free software with required capabilities[4],
> defined as "I can download it or build it myself[5], perhaps based on
> an existing project."  For a larger, quite substantial, minority, the
> caveat "and a specific product is not required by my employer and/or
> clients" is added.
>
> What you have written is considered a mortal insult by the group I am
> talking about.  Do you really want to offend them?  They don't need a
> wake-up call.  They know what the issue is, they just currently
> disagree with the free software movement's stance.  It seems to me
> that this group would be easily swayed by experiencing adversity
> imposed by proprietary software, or possibly well-targeted persuasion
> by the movement.
>
>  > ["I want software with fewer bugs and will use, maybe contribute
>  > to, software that gives me that" is] a valid stance, but not really
>  > worth labelling as a philosophy,
>
> Of course it's a philosophy, and worth labelling as such.  It's very
> generally applicable, and it's called "(individual) utilitarianism" or
> "economism" and similar.  However, I don't know anybody who actually
> adheres to it outside of Ayn Rand novels, and I'm not sure any more
> that even John Galt really did.
>
>
> Footnotes: 
> [1]  At least here in Japan, people talk about "turning on the
> Internet" in lieu of "turning on the PC and connecting to the 'Net".
>
> [2]  This is what I am familiar with; I am not going to pretend to
> know about any further rights and freedoms that other cultures may
> insist upon, although I acknowledge the near certainty that my list is
> incomplete.
>
> [3]  Though few engineers would recognize a 75% or so success rate as
> "reliable". :-)
>
> [4]  This is not a loophole for minor "nice features".  An example
> requirement would be "httpd *that does SSL*."  YMMV, but people I know
> are pretty strict about this.
>
> [5]  For many this is a null set.  They're web designers, etc, and
> can't build software at all outside of Javascript and CSS.
>
>
>

-- 

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

David Kastrup writes:
 > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:
 > 
 > > You're missing the point, which is that of all human beings not
 > > currently in the free software movement, the most likely-to-join group
 > > is probably the open source community.
 > 
 > If the free software movement masks itself as the open source community,
 > that group has nowhere to go.

Are you *deliberately* missing the point?  Please reread the Executive
Summary, and note that self-labeling is *part of the message*.

 > Because business will only cooperate at gunpoint.

Nonsense.  Business is all about cooperation, especially about
organizing cooperation between parties who never meet, but
nevertheless need to exchange value indirectly.

It is true that some businesses are enforced at gunpoint (the
telephone company, in many countries), and others are enabled by
gunpoint (any business based on licensing copyrights or patents as a
salient example).  But the actual conduct of even those businesses is
cooperative in all cases, because it's voluntary trade.

That doesn't mean you have to like cooperating with a given business,
or that you wouldn't prefer a different share of surplus value (more
to yourself, less to the business).  Nonetheless, it *is* cooperation.

 > But business only believes in shareholder value, anyway.

Of course not.  Any viable business believes in customer value.  Even
franchised monopolies do.  It is true that a good business aims
primarily at increasing shareholder value in most advanced countries
(Japan is a prominent exception).  Nevertheless, businesses know that
if they do not produce customer value, they will die, extracting no
shareholder value.

 > Since the economy is built around taxing any flow of cooperation
 > and knowledge, free software, which is designed to be impervious to
 > damming, is bound to fail as a business model component in a lot of
 > settings.

Your phrasing is disagreeable, but accurate enough for the particular
case.  Indeed, free software is primarily about enabling face-to-face
cooperation, it sucks at protecting value of third party businesses,
and therefore is able to capture only bilateral value for its
participants in many cases.  For this reason, free software often (not
always, perhaps only a minority of cases) leaves most of the latent
value, which is due to indirect cooperation, lying on the sidewalk.

But free software is not about value, it's about freedom.  So we don't
care about that.  Right?

 > The Open Source movement counts this as a deficiency of the software,
 > the Free Software movement counts this as a deficiency of the system.

I agree with your characterization of the free software movement, and
frankly, the free software movement needs to get a clue.  Sorry.  The
current system using artificial property rights in software sucks, and
the one that free software aims at is IM nonprofessional O is clearly
better.  That's why I support the free software movement although I'm
not a member.  But wearing my economics professor hat, I have to say
that the free software movement's economics gets an F.

 > > If what you mean is, "Give me software freedom, or give me death!",
 > 
 > "or I will create it myself." is the actual credo of the free software
 > movement.

Of course it's not.  You cannot create a social system yourself; you
must get the participation of others.  But imposing a social system on
people who don't want it is abhorrent to freedom lovers.

The question is whether the value of full software freedom is so high
that you would give up anything that is merely economic value for it,
or whether there can be "enough" software freedom in a mixed system.
The rhetoric of the free software movement, especially when trash-
talking open source, is that the value of software freedom is *that*
high.  No mixed system will do.  No?

 > > OK, but the basic fact of life in any group larger than one is that
 > > there are many rights, they conflict, and not everybody is going to
 > > agree with that unidimensional philosophy as a solution.
 > 
 > That's not a problem of the philosophy.

Unidimensionality is a fundamental problem in any social philosophy,
at least if it wants to get broad enough acceptance to get implemented
in a democracy.

 > > Please stop merely repeating the FSF propaganda about open source, and
 > > deal with the phenomenon as it is: diverse.  You cannot win the hearts
 > > of my friends otherwise.
 > 
 > 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.  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".

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Richard Stallman]

     > There is a reason for this: most of our community labels itself "open
     > source".

    That's the first time I've heard you refer to open source as "our
    community".  That is a welcome change!

It is not a change.  I have always said (since 1998) that the two
political camps in the free software community are the free software
movement and the open source camp.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[David Kastrup]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> 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

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Lennart Borgman]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:16, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I seek clarification on "right to redistribute" against "contractual
> obligation to redistribute modified source".

When you modify GPL software:

1)  If you just use it "in house" (inside your company) you do not
have to distribute the the modifications. (But it is of course nice if
you make them available.)

2)  If you let someone else use the modified software you have to distribute it.

Maybe there is a "gray zone" for GPL software used on a web server?

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Jambunathan K]

Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:16, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I seek clarification on "right to redistribute" against "contractual
>> obligation to redistribute modified source".
>
> When you modify GPL software:
>
> 1)  If you just use it "in house" (inside your company) you do not
> have to distribute the the modifications. (But it is of course nice if
> you make them available.)

You miss the point.

Companies that sell Routers obviously have their firmware running in
(big) Telecom companies. The software is produced for the sole reason
that it be used *not* "in house".

I am not talking of hobby projects or mom-and-pop shops but businesses
that are worth a fortune which have GNU/Linux as *one* of the *key
components* as part of their key infrastructure.

Jambunathan K.

-- 

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Jambunathan K]

> Maybe there is a "gray zone" for GPL software used on a web server?

Or on search servers or embedded devices ...

Jambunathan K.

-- 

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Andreas Röhler]

>
> 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.
>

All these companies have been in decline when starting FLOSS.
Maybe in an essay of sourcing unpayed labor.
Let's see how Oracle behaves.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Jambunathan K]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> 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

Lately we see more and more companies talking of "Corporate Social
Responsibility" and pride themselves in supporting and making a positive
impact on "Local Communities".

In case of Democracies, the behaviours that does not fall strictly
within ambit of law has to be "regulated" by advocacy and (vehement)
public opinion.

Often times similar companies align themselves into "Chambers of
Commerce" to protect their own interests and often have written code of
ethics to which a member constituent has to strictly adhere to.

I would make a reasonable assumption that a company producing a "Open
Source" component is very likely to depend on other "Open Source"
components during it's production process.

Putting all the above different items together:

FLOSS companies has to be pressured in to act in ways that nurture the
ecosystem and prevented from acting in ways that is harmful to the
ecosystem. The companies have to adopt an ethical standard where part of
their funds for CSR program is used to fund their FLOSS peers..

A common user has to be educated so that he can exert his pressure in
the right direction. Campaigns for boycott comes to my mind here.

The citizens can also lobby with the governments and insist on their
governments allocating budgetary funds to FLOSS projects that the
governments have to come rely on.

As I put my thoughts down, it is becoming increasing clear that an
education campaign and programs like boycott or making hostile takeovers
a tabeau would considerably strengthen the FLOSS ecosystem.

Just as with Liberty, the goal of FLOSS is not to improve the
"happiness" of a single or narrowed set of entities but to improve the
"sum total of happiness" of the entire ecosystem.

Jambunathan K.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Jambunathan K]

(I hope I am not spamming you)

I wonder how FLOSS relates to "Social Entrepreneurship/Businesses" as
advocated by http://www.ashoka.org/.

I think FLOSS would appeal to "Social Entrepreneurs/Businesses". A
positive campaign that highlights FLOSS and "Social Entrepreneurship"
ties would not only help a thriving FLOSS system but also thriving
Enterprises.

Jambunathan K.

-- 

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Glenn Morris]

I think this conversation would be better suited to somewhere else, eg
the gnu-misc-discuss list.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Alan Mackenzie]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 02:26:54AM +0530, Jambunathan K wrote:

> (I hope I am not spamming you)

I'm wondering a bit about your Follow-Up-To setting, which I have
ignored.

> I wonder how FLOSS relates to "Social Entrepreneurship/Businesses" as
> advocated by http://www.ashoka.org/.

Do you think, everybody, we might bring this discussion slowly to a
finish?  It doesn't seem to have much specifically to do with Emacs
Development, and it seems, at least in my arrogant opinion, that
everything in the topic space has already been said at least once.

> Jambunathan K.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[PJ Weisberg]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Lennart Borgman
<lennart.borgman@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:16, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I seek clarification on "right to redistribute" against "contractual
>> obligation to redistribute modified source".
>
> When you modify GPL software:
>
> 1)  If you just use it "in house" (inside your company) you do not
> have to distribute the the modifications. (But it is of course nice if
> you make them available.)
>
> 2)  If you let someone else use the modified software you have to distribute it.

No, if you let someone else use the modified software, you have to
*let them* distribute it.  If they want to.  You also have to provide
them with the modified source code.

Copyright law never *requires* you to make copies of anything.

> Maybe there is a "gray zone" for GPL software used on a web server?

This is what the Affero GPL was meant to address.

-PJ

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Miles Bader]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> FLOSS, for "Free/libre and open source software", is a reasonable term
> to use to talk about both the free software movement and the open
> source camp.  A good treatment will also state what each of the two
> camps stands for, since most readers are misinformed about both.
>
> FOSS puts us at a disadvantage because "open source" is more visible
> than "free software".  Adding "/libre" balances that out.

Hmm, I'm not sure I get the "more visible" part -- "free" is the very
first thing in the FOSS acronym, it always seemed to me like a
not-so-subtle way of saying "free software and oh yeah, that other
thing, open source"...  FOSS and FLOSS both "feel" about the same to me.

I like adding libre since it's a nice evocative word, so it seems kind
of a shame that "FLOSS" also has the potentially confusing mundane
meaning as word ...

hMmm ... "Proprietary software making your mouth feel dirty?  Always
remember to FLOSS!"  :]

-miles

-- 
You can hack anything you want, with TECO and DDT.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Richard Stallman]

    > If what you mean is, "Give me software freedom, or give me death!",

    "or I will create it myself." is the actual credo of the free software
    movement.  "or something else." that of the open source movement since
    they focus on secondary concerns.

Well said!


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Richard Stallman]

    Maybe there is a "gray zone" for GPL software used on a web server?

It is not very gray.  The GNU AGPL adds the requirement that if you
run the program on a server, you make its source available to the
users of that server.  The GNU GPL does not require this.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:
 >      > There is a reason for this: most of our community labels itself "open
 >      > source".
 > 
 >     That's the first time I've heard you refer to open source as "our
 >     community".  That is a welcome change!
 > 
 > It is not a change.  I have always said (since 1998) that the two
 > political camps in the free software community are the free software
 > movement and the open source camp.

Indeed, I am aware of the camp vs community distinction in your
writing.  I must have dropped context somewhere you did not treat that
explicitly.  Sorry, my bad.

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Richard Stallman]

    Indeed, I am aware of the camp vs community distinction in your
    writing.  I must have dropped context somewhere you did not treat that
    explicitly.  Sorry, my bad.

It is not a big deal.  We all forget things.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[microsoft gaofei]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 501 bytes --]

>They are the same thing -- they are not "two types of software".
>Rather, there are two terms for the same type of software, and those
>terms each have different emphases.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html  . [Quote]If a license includes unconscionable restrictions, we reject it, even if we did not anticipate the issue in these criteria.[Quote] You can find that Richard Stallman gives you more freedoms than Sybase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybase_Open_Watcom_Public_License

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 661 bytes --]