Slashdot Mirror
FSFE President Urges Community To Strengthen Open Source As a Brand
Georg Greve, founder and president of the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE), has an insightful look at FOSS from a brand perspective with urgings that the community come together and strengthen open source as a unified brand. "There are plenty of false enemies to go around. Ironically, the most common form of false enemy is found around the animosity that has built around branding and framing issues, more specifically in the area of 'Free Software' vs 'Open Source.' Name-calling and quarreling on either side is not helpful, and serves to hide the common base and interest in having a strong brand and powerful message. The historical facts around Free Software are well documented and available to anyone who wishes to look them up. But instead of focusing on past insults and wrongs, I believe our focus should be on the future. We should realize that what divides us pales in comparison to what we have in common and that division and exclusion are harmful to us all. So we should rein in the name-callers on either side, and empower those people who know how to build cooperation, corporations, and positive feedback loops."
The Catholic Church split and became the Church of England and the Catholic church.
Actually is was more like the protoChurch splitting into the Catholic Church the Greek Orthodox Church and some sects and orders that existed for a while there after before either being Assimilated, Exterminated or driven to some geographical region were they were practically unreachable.
Now a bit later Lutheran Protestants appeared and split from the Catholics. And AFTER that the King of England broke with the Pope and established a new order with the Crown as a the head of the English Church.
Of course this is EXTREME SIMPLIFICATIONS of complex historical processes and events. But the splitting of the English Church from the Catholic faith did not happen in a vacuum.
The Long Now Foundation
Except that section 3b of GPL v2 says that the source code needs to made available to those for whom you make available copies of your work.
Nowhere does it say that you have to make copies of your work available for everybody, neither does it say that you have to make the source available to everybody.
What it does do is prevent anybody who already has copies of the work (obtained by legal/lawful means), and/or the source code, making it available to others.
God: An invisible friend for grown-ups.
Why did you stop?
The Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative are very different in philosophy and how they present themselves. There are often serious disagreements on what is best to do on on legal and political issues.
However, when it comes to writing software, the two are very similar. They encourage the same things, and differ only slightly in the licenses they accept.
The software written by a Free Software developer out of ideology is basically indistinguishable from that written by an esr follower who just wants to use the bazaar technique of development. At this level, there are no differences.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
One is to believe there was a substantial difference in the software referred to by the terms "Free Software" and "Open Source."
He is referring to a specific definition -- the original definition -- for Open Source, which was practically the same as Free Software. Standing by itself there, without context, he seems inconsistent, but he's not. Now read down a bit,
Open Source is a failed re-branding effort over which its creators lost control, followed by brand degradation through abuse and over-extension into areas such as business and development models.
This is where the Open Source and Free Software divide when it comes to definitions. The brand Open Source was abused and stretched so that it is no longer consistent with Free Software. This makes his statements consistent with the official FSF stance: that Open Source and Free Software are now two different things.
If you hadn't stopped reading there you would understand the context that makes this statement true. Read the next paragraph and it will make sense. In fact, TFA addresses important differences between Open Source and Free Software.
Hint: in your quoted sentence he is referring to a specific, older definition for Open Source.
Without Linux, GNU would not run at all. All GNU software needs an Operating System to work
Linux is not an operating system, it is a kernel; together the GNU tools and Linux make up an operating system.