"Risto H. Kurppa recently posted about a bad experience with a free software hacker when Kurppa tried to get access to the most recent revisions of an unpublished program’s source code. We aren’t told what program this is, except that source code is published with certain versions (called “release” versions, ostensibly versions the developers believe are suitable for widespread use, as opposed to other versions of the code which are primarily intended for developers) and the program’s source code is licensed under the GNU GPL version 2..."
Full story »
http://www.digitalcitizen.info –
Category: Philosophy Tags:
- Login to post comments
sepreece
15 years 23 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago
Story has nothing to do with free vs open
Whoever submitted this makes no coherent point about the relative advantages of free software and open-source software. Kurppa's argument is exactly the opposite of what is suggested by the FSD title - Kurppa is complaining that free isn't enough - that while the software is apparently free, it would be better for the software and the community if it were also open. The FSD commenter apparently believes that free is the only thing that matters (which is fine) and then apparently objects to Kurppa's notion that free AND open would be better than just free. I don't think even Stallman would agree with that...
aboutblank
15 years 23 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago
I disagree
I disagree with you. This commentary isn't about the advantages of free software vs. open source software, it is about the philosophical differences between "software freedom" and "open source".
Software freedom is about the right for one to help oneself (live in freedom) as well as the right to live a morally upstanding and socially responsible lives. Freedoms 0 and 1 refer to the right to live in freedom; freedoms 2 and 3 refer to the right to live as a socially responsible citizen. Having the right to practise these freedoms inherently includes the right to not practise these freedoms.
The open source movement inherently requires the community to cooperate in order for the movement to work. In contrast, the free software movement states that cooperation is an option - people may choose to cooperate or not cooperate with their communities. The point is that while it is very good to share and cooperate, there should be no obligation to do so; people share and cooperate only because they want to share and cooperate.
In contrast, proprietary software subjugates users of their essential freedom. Proprietary software takes away the user's freedom (freedom 0 and freedom 1). Proprietary software takes away the right to be socially responsible citizens (freedom 2 and freedom 3); the people that share software against the wishes of the master are labelled as "pirates". Society cannot live in freedom whenever accepting proprietary software.
sepreece
15 years 23 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago
sure, but...
The commentary doesn't make the point you do (which is a reasonable point), and never supports the headline given it.
Your last paragraph, on the other hand, introduces the issue of proprietary software, which neither the Kurppa piece nor the commentary says anything about at all.
I would stand by my point - free AND open is better than just free. Stallman says software wants to be free; I don't think he's talking about the vacuous freedom of never leaving the author's computer. Kurppa never says the author doesn't have the freedom to withhold his work and doesn't claim that open is preferable to free, he just says the software would improve faster if it were open *as well as* free.
I guess I would also disagree with your notion that free software succeeds even if people choose not to share and collaborate. If they don't share and collaborate there is no gain in freedom, community, nor social responsibility. I don't see how the free software movement could be said "to work" if movement participants did not choose to also be open and cooperative.