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

Re: What free software means to me

Author:Mark A. Hershberger
Posted:8/20/2000; 10:40:14 PM
Topic:A History of "Open Source"
Msg #:19866 (In response to 19861)
Prev/Next:19865 / 19868

Like Eric Raymond spicing up his open source rants with BS about how guns are cool.

esr has left a bad taste in many people's mouths with his antics, mine included. I do not like a lot of what he stands for. I disagree with the way he promotes free software. I could go on, but I won't.

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.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I always thought that esr's "Open Source" movement wanted to present a purly pragmatic apology for releasing source code. It was my understanding that he was trying to avoid the idealism of rms. If this is not the case -- if "Open Source" is a moral stance on the issues -- then I would agree that some close examination needs to happen.

The GNU agreement is impossible for an honorable developer who does both commercial and open source software to use.

I would agree. This, unfortunatly, makes me dishonorable. Hopefully, I can escape this delima (how to feed my family and remain true to ideals I have) soon -- my contract is about to expire and I'm looking for new work. I'm looking for system administration work so I won't be paid to develop software. (A lot of the creators of free software make their livings as sysadmins. Is this the ideal? No, but we've got quite a ways to go before we get to what I would call ideal.)

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.

I'd love to do this.

The number one issue I see is that esr has put himself in position as spokesperson for a movement and tried to make an idealistic movement totally amoral and pragmatic. He also tries to sell his pro-gun, libertarian beliefs as a bundle with "open source". He has made a lot of people on both sides of the issue angry by doing this.

Then there are those who whine about the particular licenseing scheme people use. There are some real issues that need to be discussed but some people just want to complain because so and so released his software under a license they don't like. No one can tell me (or you) how to release my software.

I would bet, though, that you have put more thought into this than I have. What are some of the ethical issues you see?

There are responses to this message:

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

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.