Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Sep 2006 13:59 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Linspire In a move that some may have sensed was coming, Eric S. Raymond - one of the co-founders of the open-source movement - has joined the Freespire Leadership Board. Raymond believes desktop Linux is entering into a critical period, noting that historically, users have shifted operating systems during periods of fundamental changes in hardware platforms. He believes the PC vendors' embrace of 64-bit computing will provide desktop Linux a unique window of opportunity, which if missed, may not come along again for many years.
Thread beginning with comment 166143
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Clarification
by JeffS on Wed 27th Sep 2006 16:41 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

Eric Raymond was a co-founder of OSI - Open Source Initiative, along with Bruce Perens and others.

Whether ESR himself coined the term "Open Source" or not is not known. But the term "Open Source", did in fact, come from OSI.

The term "Open Source" was a reaction to the less business palatable term "Free Software", being touted by RMS. Also, OSI was a more pragmatic, moderate reaction to the Free Software Foundation.

So, ESR has a history of taking the more pragmatic, business palatable stance on open source software, and thus is probably a good fit at the Freespire board.

What he brings to the table, other than name recognition and geek credibility, I don't know.

Disclaimer: I'm not defending ESR. I, too, think he's arrogant and full of himself, and his hyper Libertarian, pro-Gun views can be over the top (similar to RMS's hyper free software, liberalism views can be over the top). But I did figure that some clarification was in order.

ESR was, in fact, a co-founder of OSI.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Clarification
by Sphinx on Wed 27th Sep 2006 17:01 in reply to "Clarification"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Word, give the brother his props.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Clarification
by Get a Life on Wed 27th Sep 2006 19:39 in reply to "Clarification"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

Business-friendly free software did not originate with OSI. Being a co-founder of OSI does not make one a "co-founder of open source movement," when the term "open source" is just a marketing term coined to represent an alternative to the FSF's philosophies that existed well before 1998.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Clarification
by JeffS on Wed 27th Sep 2006 21:40 in reply to "RE: Clarification"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

"Business-friendly free software did not originate with OSI. Being a co-founder of OSI does not make one a "co-founder of open source movement,""

No, but the term "open source" originated with OSI.

" when the term "open source" is just a marketing term coined to represent an alternative to the FSF's philosophies that existed well before 1998."

And really, that was (and is) OSI's purpose - marketing - or giving businesses a warm fuzzy about using "open source software" or "free software", or however you want to call it.

Face it, as brilliant a programmer as Richard Stallman is, and as influential his GNU project, Free Software Foundation and GPL are, his going around yapping about "Free Software" typically repells businesses, and many moderate users who want to just use computers to get things done, or for play.

In geek/programmer terms, just consider OSI and the term "open source" as easy to use and transportable wrapper functions around the more prickely Free Software Foundation and the term "Free Software" API's. ;-)

And, once again, I'm not a big fan of ESR. He's an arrogant blow-hard whose technical knowledge/abilities are drawrfed by those of RMS or Linus Torvalds or Larry Wall or Andrew Morton or Guido Van Rossum or Alan Cox.

Nevetheless, ESR is highly visible, and he's a very good writer (he is very good at that), and he's been a constant advocate for open source. Give him credit for that, and Freespire for recognizing ESR's advocacy and writing abilities.

Edited 2006-09-27 21:41

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Clarification
by sbergman27 on Thu 28th Sep 2006 00:18 in reply to "Clarification"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""The term "Open Source" was a reaction to the less business palatable term "Free Software", being touted by RMS."""

Just a small nit. The term "Open Source" was also a reaction to the confusing and ambiguous term "Free Software", being touted by RMS; A problem which has continued to exist to this day.

This is why I use the term "Open Source". It's clear and to the point.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Clarification
by pinky on Thu 28th Sep 2006 13:39 in reply to "RE: Clarification"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>he term "Open Source" was also a reaction to the confusing and ambiguous term "Free Software",

Only that "Open Source" is much more ambiguous than "Free Software".

That's why I use the term "Free Software". It's clear and to the point.

Let me explain why?
"Open Source" what does you can get from this words? Nothing more than "the sources are open" but this isn't by far enough for the 4 freedoms or the 10 points of the Open Source definition so you have to interpret a lot into the words "open" and "source" to come to the 10 points of the Open Source definition or the the 4 freedoms and if you want you can interprete a lot of other things in the words "open" and "source".

On the other side we have the term "Free Software". Yes, in english the term "free" is ambiguous but one of the ambiguous meanings of "free" is "freedom". So "free" as in freedom is a meaning of "free" everyone can get from the normal linguistic usage. And if you have the right meaning of "free" than "Free Software" together with the 4 freedoms makes perfect sense both logically and linguistic something you can't say from "Open Source" and the 10 points of the definition.
There is another important point. You can translate "Free Software" in many other languages and in this languages "free" often isn't ambiguous. E.g. "logiciels libre" in French, here the term "logiciels libre" and the 4 freedoms makes perfect sens from the beginning and you have the advantage to talk to people in their own language.

"Free Software" have so much to offer:
- logical and linguistic sense of the words.
- shorter and easier definition to remember and understand.
- you can speak to the people in their own language.

So i think "Free Software" (and all its translations) is much better than "Open Source".

Edited 2006-09-28 13:56

Reply Parent Score: 2

Corrections
by Moulinneuf on Thu 28th Sep 2006 07:31 in reply to "Clarification"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_movement

The open source movement is an offshoot of the free software movement that advocates open source software as an alternative label for free software

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

The "open source" label came out of a strategy session[3] held at Palo Alto in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator. The group of individuals at the session included Christine Peterson who suggested "open source" and also included Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, and Eric S. Raymond. They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to free themselves of the ideological and confrontational connotations of the term free software. Netscape listened and released their code as open source under the name of Mozilla.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative

A group of people interested in free software and GNU/Linux decided to introduce a new marketing term for free software, seeking to position it as business-friendly and less ideologically loaded. This led to creating the term "open source" and a schism with Richard Stallman and his Free Software Foundation.

Raymond was president from its founding until February 2005; Russ Nelson replaced him for one month, but after some controversy he resigned and Michael Tiemann became interim president.

"The term "Open Source" was a reaction "

No , it was a marketing tool. Not a reaction against , but a marketing Tool for Free Software and help it gain momentum in the Business world of CTO , CIO and CEO.

"So, ESR has a history of taking the more pragmatic, business palatable stance on open source software"

No , ESR as the history of screwing up VA Linux Systems , Open Source , Free Software and being really shifting on its stance and strategy going with what he perceive to be the Feeling of the moment.

"and thus is probably a good fit at the Freespire board. "

Time will tell , judging from history NO , but he could have changed.

Reply Parent Score: 2