Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: What free software means to me

Author:Dave Winer
Posted:8/20/2000; 9:20:54 PM
Topic:A History of "Open Source"
Msg #:19861 (In response to 19860)
Prev/Next:19860 / 19862

No, sorry, I meant "rider" as in the rider on a bill.

Like Eric Raymond spicing up his open source rants with BS about how guns are cool. I feel if he's representing separate movements those issues should be kept separate. No problem if he likes to shoot guns, but keep it out of the open source stuff. (And keep them away from me, I hate guns.)

So in this context a rider is an agenda that's different from what it might seem to be, in conflict with the interests of open source, and possibly hidden or not well-enough disclosed.

Since the Open Source community takes a highly moral position, these things must be examined carefully, and processes opened up where ever possible, and tough questions asked, and if no answers are provided that must be understood.

Another issue. The GNU agreement is impossible for an honorable developer who does both commercial and open source software to use. This is also a rider. It hurts open source, because it keeps out people who don't fully subscribe to the Stallman philosophy, but still want to make a contribution. Why add the extra agendas? If I'm willing to contribute, isn't that reason enough to accept the contribution?

We could build quite a list of ethical issues for open source advocates, and in doing so, help clear up the contradictions, and find out who really is working for open source, and who's a naked emperor, and then we know who to work with.

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:08 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.