"Je Free Software mrtev?", ptá se

"Je Free Software mrtev?", ptá se v článku na LinuxWorld autor, který si říká o pěknou flamewar. Perlička: "...do dnešního dne používají mnozí pro Linux název GNU/Linux".

7.9.2004 09:13 | Robert Krátký | Komunita

Komentáře

[Martin Kysela]

))

[unchallenger]

Takový flamebait bych čekal na OSNews, o LinuxWorldu jsem myslel, že má aspoň redakci...

[MSlunečný-sněžný muž]

??? Am I missing something?

The author just expresses the firm conviction that the term Free Software has become obsolete with the introduction of the Open Source label, which I certainly agree with. I wonder why a flameware is expected to evolve?

Anyone to shed some light on this????

[unchallenger]

A to jsem chtěl za flamebait napsat poznámku ,,(článek, kdyby to náhodou četl MSlunečný-sněžný muž)``, ale už ses tu dlouho neukázal, tak jsem si řekl, že MSlunce už asi MSníh rozpustilo a smazal jsem ji ... a on se tu jako na potvoru ukáže ;-)

flame bait: n.

[common] A posting intended to trigger a flame war, or one that invites flames in reply.

I can't see any contradiction here.

[unchallenger]

Well, you can argue the author is unaware such a statement will inevitably provoke flames -- and thus it doesn't classify as flamebait because it isn't intentional. However, if he/she is so uninformed then the part about editors still holds.

Anyway, if everyone was like him/her or you, prefering some manager friendliness to freedom, no Free or Open Source Software would have been ever created at the first place. The idea of free (as in freedom) came first, then the business thing (because Free Software was successful). Freedom in software development is not something obsolete we should get rid of, it's in the very roots of FOSS -- and if you destroy the roots, the whole plant will die. Stop teaching users about freedom ... and say goodbye to your open source business.

[MSlunecny-snezny muz]

Perhaps GNU/Linux is your expertise, though I still think you miss the point.

There’s no need to dig that deep; the trouble is simple and consists in the word “free”. If you don’t realize the ambiguity of the word’s meaning and the danger of misunderstanding newcomers may encounter, that’s your problem.

[unchallenger]

Well, the word `free' really has the problem it's ambiguous, only one of its meanings is the intended one, the other is misleading.

The term open source has only one clear meaning. A very misleading meaning, that is. Open source (small `o' and `s') means everyone can look at the code (source), nothing more. It doesn't state you can modify it, redistribute it, or base your own works on it. But Open Source requires all these rights, like Free Software does (see definition of Open Source).

I can't see how Open Source could be a better term than Free Software then.

[MSlunecny-snezny muz]

Don't agree. The "Open Source" does not offer a full definition, that's for sure; however, if needed, you may go for a detailed definition later. On the contrary, the Free Software does have the "for free" touch that cannot be removed easily in English. Therefore it's telling lies. Saying less (as with Open Source) is always better than that.

I'd say, Mr. Kratky, who posted this one, misinterpreted the title. He thought the author spoke of the Free Software itself, I suppose. The article's title lacks the word "term", which is a result of pars pro toto concept, widely used in papers.

Is Free Software dead? No, certainly not. :))) Is the term dead? YES. It's been for some time, no matter if RMS likes it or not, and I see no need to prolong its clinical death. The vast majority of people around linux uses the Open Source term, including this server. If you don't see that, perhaps it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

[MSlunečný-sněžný muž]

flameware == flamewar

[unchallenger]

flameware != flamewar != flamewear ;-)

[MSlunecny-snezny muz]

Knew someone would be mocking me for this typo. However, in a "phonetic" point of view, your statement is incorrect.