Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 27th Sep 2005 22:40 UTC, submitted by Danijel Orsolic
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu "This follow-up to the previously published article 'Ubuntu: Derivative or Fork?' takes into account most of everything that has been posted as a reaction to the first article to present a general opinion and compare them with facts derived from various resouces. You'll see that peace can be achieved between these two, and ultimately any GNU/Linux group out there."
Thread beginning with comment 37306
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[13]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 05:47 UTC in reply to "RE[12]: "Freedom""

Member since:

Stew, I apologize for that. I shouldn't have made it sound like it was pointed putting those words in your mouth..

But you guy are now starting to confuse me by saying that you are not against freedom, but are against the way FSF uses the word freedom.. How should they be using it then?

But I think that I get it ;) You like the more so called "pragmatic" approach of the Open Source movement, an Eric Raymond "show me the code" approach. I respect your opinion and it's not the first time I've debated with an open source supporter so if nothing else we can feel free to disagree.

I am an FSF supporter as I know the reason why FSF set out to build a GNU system, solely because of freedom. And it was GNU that was used to build linux and finally integrate the two into an usable OS called GNU/Linux, so all of this is rooted at that point and with FSF. But "who started it" matters less than the fact that I believe educating people about the importance of freedom as the central issue is in the long term better than just showing off how superior Free Software and it's development model is.

You don't need to look farther than this whole Debian vs. Ubuntu issue here. I think that the only way people are to stop complaining about Ubuntu and flameing each other about this is to understand what is behind all this and why is it the way it is. Ubuntu did what it did because it could, because it had freedom to do so. Others can do the same and derivate from Debian to achieve some other goals. The result is that everyone has the choice and most importantly the freedom to choose. That *freedom* is something that flows beneath all of this, that makes it possible, and only *not* seeing this can make people flame each other because of choices they made, because they don't agree with those choices. How can they respect their choice when they don't understand freedom.

In my opinion, open source movement has contributed to this misunderstanding of freedom by hiding the "talk of freedom" and thus detributed from educating people about freedom.

This article, among others, tries to restore this understanding in order to try and resolve a confusion and controversion. And I will continue to promote and try to educate about freedom! This is what my site is dedicated to and what the network I'm founding will be dedicated to: spreading free culture along with understanding and appreciation of freedom that makes it possible.

Thank you
Daniel

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[14]: "Freedom"
by stew on Wed 28th Sep 2005 06:01 in reply to "RE[13]: "Freedom""
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

"But you guy are now starting to confuse me by saying that you are not against freedom, but are against the way FSF uses the word freedom.. How should they be using it then?"[/i]

Not as an adjective for software. Freedom can stand for freedom of thought, of speech or of movement. Software can't think, speak or move. So how can software have freedom? Talk about free developers instead, because they are the ones who can enjoy freedom or not, not their software.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[15]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 08:30 in reply to "RE[14]: "Freedom""
Member since:

"But you guy are now starting to confuse me by saying that you are not against freedom, but are against the way FSF uses the word freedom.. How should they be using it then?"

Not as an adjective for software. Freedom can stand for freedom of thought, of speech or of movement. Software can't think, speak or move. So how can software have freedom? Talk about free developers instead, because they are the ones who can enjoy freedom or not, not their software


Because they try to anthropomorphize software which is strange since it's just bits. It's an unhealthy worship of the feeling of free software rather than what the software can actually accomplish.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[15]: "Freedom"
by archiesteel on Wed 28th Sep 2005 13:18 in reply to "RE[14]: "Freedom""
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Not as an adjective for software. Freedom can stand for freedom of thought, of speech or of movement. Software can't think, speak or move. So how can software have freedom?

Your argument doesn't hold if one considers code to be a form of speech. If speech can be free then so can software.

Look at it this way: speech, by itself, can't think, move or (in the case of written words) speak. So how could it have freedom? Following your arguments, because speech is not by itself a sentient organism, it cannot be free, and therefore "free speech" cannot exist.

Nice little rethorical cage you've made for yourself, there...

As usual with these discussions: if you don't like the GPL, don't use it.

Meanwhile, you haven't responded to my suggestion of contacting the software authors for relicensing...which GPL app were you talking about earlier that you'd like to make into a plugin for a proprietary app? I assume it was a real example, and not a made-up one...

Reply Parent Score: 1