I agree. However, there is really no reason to trust other developers of non-free software. Only free software shifts the power from the developer to the user so there is a balance. With non-free software, you never know what you get and from experience we know we get a lot of hidden non-features. With free software this is still possible, but it is less likely and we, the users, can do something about any problem we discover.
I agree with your statement that there is a difference between morality and legality. But legality without morality is not oppression.
Legality is the state in which people have to do what is right because they would face a penalty otherwise (in order to combine everyone's personal freedom). Morality goes further than that because morality does not just look at people's actions but also at people's motivation, their thinking, etc. Legality can be enforced by a state, morality cannot because no one can actually make someone else think a certain way. (I can prevent them from saying what they think, but their inner convictions cannot be controlled by anyone.) There are of course actual states that try to regulate the morality of their citizens but such attempts are futile. That is why actual laws can never be based on morality.
That said, actual laws need to comply with legality and since morality demands the same things as legality (plus things regarding motivation etc.), laws that are in accordance with legality are also in accordance with morality (but do not cover all areas that morality does).
So that means legality and morality are two mostly independent systems and while I would rather live in a moral world, I have to (and can) deal with the fact that I live in a world with people who are not completely moral and since morality cannot be enforced, I have to settle for legality (which is enough most of the time because it guarantees my freedom).
I totally agree with you in respect to copyright being unjustifiably used against society, though.
it's making everyone else's vote count as 1/6th the vote of people "selected" by the government.
If that was the case, cumulative voting would be bad, yes. But it doesn't work that way. What cumulative voting is, it gives everyone more votes to distribute among candidates. So everyone's vote is basically split into fractions, but everyone's ballot has the same weight overall. So if I (and everyone else) got 10 votes, I might chose to give 3 (respectively 3/10 of my vote) votes to candidate A, 2 (2/10) to candidate C, D, and J and 1 (1/10) vote to candidate X. This way, I can show that I like candidate A the most, but I'm also ok with candidates C, D, J, and X, but not with everyone else on the ballot.
I really don't get it. I have watched a couple of games so far and even though my hearing is good, I didn't feel like there was an unusual high level of noise in those games. The commentator is obviously always louder than the background noise because the station creates the audio mix that way. And for the sound of the vuvuzelas: It's an unusual sound, but at least on TV doesn't seem to be any louder than other noisemakers spectators often use. It seems to me that using horns and other noisemakers have been a part of soccer games for quite some time and the vuvuzelas, traditional or not, are just another instance of a noisemaker. They might be louder in the stadium, but on TV, they don't bother me at all.
Unfortunately, you're trying to use "technical difficulties" as a term to make it sound as if it was all unavoidable and just a complete accident rather than saying "yeah, the rights management fucked itself again. It's a known issue and completely unnecessary but that's what's causing the problems."
But I was trying to explain that it was avoidable and DRM "fucked itself up again". I don't disagree with you; I think we just have a different understanding of the term "licensing issues".
There are two different reasons for licensing issues: One are merely technical reasons (the system is somehow broken). The other one is that the system legitimately refuses to work, for example because someone didn't pay the licensing fee. The poster I replied to suggested that the theater or the DRM service had not paid for the license and I was trying to argue that this was not the case, but that the system itself was/is broken.
So what I did was restrict the term "licensing issue" to the meaning "the system is working correctly, but it cannot play the movie because we do not have the right to show it". Maybe this usage is too narrow. Sorry about that! I hope I could clarify what I meant.
No, it is not a licensing problem. I read the German article and it clearly states that everyone paid, but the company providing the final keys (it is a process with several stages) could not produce the correct key. It was due to technical difficulties, not licensing issues.
Here is my non-Google translation of the important part that explains what went wrong technically (sorry for the slightly unidiomatic English; I tried to stay as close to the original as possible so that the text would not become my interpretation of the original):
Apparently, the DRM-keys for the film files were the cause of the problem. The distributor of 20th Century Fox sends the JPEG2000-encoded and AES-128-encrypted movies on external hard drives via courier. After that, the data (in the case of Avatar 150 GByte) needs to be copied to the theater server. Each digital projector/server combination generates a different certificate and transmits it to the DRM service in charge. The DRM service creates an individual key for each movie and sends it back to the theater. The key is always only valid for one copy of the film as well as one projector and can be limited to specific time periods and times of day.
Yesterday (Wednesday), the transmission of the correct keys for the 3D screenings did apparently not work in several cases, though. Theater technicians tried for several hours to decrypt the gigantic pile of data, but apparently the service responsible for the digital distribution of the film, Deluxe, could not provide valid keys yesterday.
Sounds to me like not everyone is identical... Wow, imagine that!
Sure. But since this thing only measures an increase or decrease in brainwave activity, it cannot be explained by a simple "We are all different.". That's why the fact caught my interest in the first place.
I saw the same exhibit at the World Fair in Hanover in 2000. I tried it with a friend, but found it to be working quite fine. I could relax and concentrate to steer the ball both equally well. We also tried the game when one of us did nothing, so we could actually see the effects of our own relaxation/concentration.
Another friend had the same experience as you, though. I wonder what the reason for that could be.
The community is not the problem, I agree. But some customers (the guys in suits again) are and, as I wanted to point out, linguistically, the term "open source" can lead to confusion (as can the term "free software") (because people who come across it, don't necessarily know about the OSI definition). So for some customers, "open source" is just a development model. Whether that's good or bad depends on how much you care about people that just use the software know about your motivation for creating it.
I see your point and to sum up my position, here's a link to an article of which the section "Common misunderstandings of 'free software' and 'open source'" covers most of what I was trying to say (although I wouldn't agree the term "open source" was generally inferior).
I didn't read the whole article (I just came across it via Google), so please don't associate the rest of it with my point of view.
I also think the term "open source" was created to reduce the confusion of the term "free software" and not to protest Richard Stallman (with neither of which I would have a problem).
That's what the "four freedoms" are all about. That's what the text I quoted from the preamble to the GPL is about. Ok, maybe we can agree that there is a special focus on free software that cannot be made non-free at the FSF. I don't think the FSF would define other open source software as non-free (especially since they state it otherwise on their website), but then again, we don't need to agree on that part, because we both obviously had different experiences with the matter.
If you didn't have to go through the experience I guess it's harder to see. I see your point and maybe I'll look at it your way in a few years. I really enjoyed reading about your point of view, though.
Ok, sorry, I forgot about that. I was quoting, Richard Stallman and I took it from the article called "The GNU Project". But the whole article makes it much clearer, that RMS believes "open source" was intended to create a term that is less ambiguous than "free software" and that "open source" and "free software" share many values, although there are some differences.
But don't you see that for someone who does not know the FSF definition, shareware and free samples of Windows are also "free software"? I know that and I said so. Where's the problem? I said both terms are ambiguous and both terms not only includes "open source", but also "free software". Where did I say something else?
The fact that someone uses a term incorrectly for the context in which they are attempting to use it is not a reason to say "the term doesn't mean anything". I didn't say that either. Of course, "open source" means something and as I said many times before, for many people it is a synonym for "free software".
The only thing I disagreed with in your first statement was that RMS claimed free software was software that couldn't be made non-free. That wasn't the reason the term "open source" was created and I said that. Don't interpret other things into my statements.
If a free software license embodies his "four freedoms", and he says right there that the BSD license doesn't, then all that means is that he's learned to be ambiguous about the term "free software". Look at the FSF definition of "free software" and you will see, it hasn't changed. But I agree, the statement of RMS can be understood in the way that the BSDL doesn't give you those four freedoms. If you read more of his texts, you will see, that this is not what he meant. I know, he prefers the GPL, but he doesn't claim other licenses don't grant you the four freedoms (look at the FSF licenses page).
You said that it spurns freedom. Which is complete and utter manure. Ok, I should have made that more clear. This was a quotation and as I said, I wouldn't put it in those words. And I think it might have been better to quote more context, so that it would be not that misleading. Sorry!
I think you're confusing a group of people who are trying to sell a product with the people who are creating the product. If you want to know why people are involved in a project, then ask them, don't ask the guys in suits. I'm not confusing them. I am very well aware of the fact that the open source community and the free software community intersect and in many cases even consist completely of the same people. I wasn't talking about the people involved, but about the term "open source". And the term is also used by the guys in suits and they use it in a different way. I was merely stating that the term "open source" is only clearly defined if you know the OSI definition. But it is not always used in the way the OSI defined it. This makes the term ambiguous.
Without BOTH the community and the freedom to benefit from their work they wouldn't be there. Yes. That's why I was talking about the term and not about the people. The people in the community are always passionate, but this doesn't mean the term gets any less ambiguous. As you said yourself, both the community and the freedom need to be there. I only said that the term "open source" is sometimes used in a way that forgets about freedom. I know that the community is not responsible for that, but it is nevertheless a fact.
Principle? I use the BSDL and the MITL from principle, because I do not believe that you need to use legal goads to keep a project open, and I believe that it's important to make that point with something that matters to me. And I agree with you. That is about principle and the BSDL and MITL are also free software licenses. Again, I wasn't talking about the communities (which are often the same people), I was talking about the way the term is sometimes used.
Just because someone's principles are not the same as yours does not mean they do not exist. Telling someone that they are shunning freedom, community, and principle because their principles don't match yours, is pretty damn offensive. And again, that's not what I said. The term is ambiguous and is sometimes used by the guys in suits in a way that shuns freedom, community, and principle. I didn't say the community didn't have any principles.
He was saying it in 2004: I know he prefers the GPL over other licenses. But please read his comment carefully - he said the BSD license is not a good thing (I don't agree here), but he doesn't say it's not a free software license, which it is.
If you can't improve it, it's not open source. Yes, you're correct when you know the OSI definition of the term "open source". I don't disagree with you here. But some people do not use in a way the term is defined by the OSI and from a linguistic point of view, calling Microsoft's "shared source" software open source, is acceptable, but only from a linguistic point of view. It is the same with free software. When you know the FSF definition, it is not ambiguous anymore, but linguistically it is.
That's why Microsoft's original shared source licenses and the classic qmail license are not open source licenses. Yes, and not free software either. The new licenses are both open source and free software. But don't you see that for someone who does not know the OSI definition, the original shared source licenses are also "open source"? You have access to the source, so it is open. I know this is not the OSI definition and not yours, but it is the way people who are not familiar with the OSI definition will probably understand the term.
The difference between the GPL and the majority of open source licenses is whether a closed-source fork of an open-source project is possible without the collaboration of the original copyright owners. Yes, the GPL has that requirement or restriction if you will. I agree with you. But the licenses you call "open source" are also free software licenses and conversely, the GPL is also an open source license (according to the OSI). That's what I'm saying - in many cases the open source and the free software community will consist of the same people. But in some cases they don't. I didn't say anything about which approach is better; I'm simply pointing out a difference.
If you can't improve it, it's not open source. Not according to the OSI, but the term itself doesn't make that clear, nor is it always used it the way you describe it (see my other post for a longer explanation).
Go read my original message, and my other responses, keeping in mind the fact that there are people who genuinely believe in a kind of free software that doesn't need to restrict proprietary forks... because that's all they are... forks. Free software does not restrict proprietary forks. Agreed, the GPL does, but the GPL is not the only free software license, neither for the FSF, nor for Richard Stallman. The only condition for something being free software are the four freedoms, none of which say anything about proprietary forks.
To show you what I wrote is not circular reasoning and "open source" was not created because Richard Stallman tried to fight non-GPL free software, I will write down those four freedoms:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. (Access to the source code is a precondition to this.)
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
* The freedom to improve the program, and to release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (Access to the source code is a precondigiton to this.)
So, it would be perfectly fine to make a proprietary fork of free software. RMS would say it is immoral, but it is not a requirement free software to restrict proprietary forks. If you don't believe me, look at the FSF website and see for yourself which licenses they define as proper free software licenses. There are BSD and MIT licenses which are by no means restrictive at all.
The difference between "open source" and "free software" I was talking about is the following: "the rhethoric of 'open source' focuses on the potential to make high-quality, powerful software, but shuns the ideas of freedom, community, and principle."
While I would not quite put it in those words, this is what I was talking about. I don't think there is something wrong with open source, nor would I claim everyone who identifies themselves with open source did not want to grant users the four basic freedoms, but still, there is a difference between the two terms. That's all I'm saying.
No, we have two unambiguous terms for different kinds of free-as-in-speech software. One that depends on the law to keep it free, and one that depends on itself to keep it free. And that is simply incorrect. Free software is ambiguous, because the word free can have two different meanings. Open source software is ambiguous, because some people also use it in connection with proprietary software (i.e. you can look at the code, but cannot change it). Of course, the OSI defines the term "open source" quite clearly, but so does the FSF with "free software". And when you take either of the terms literally, you get it wrong, since "open source", in its literal meaning, means nothing more than "access to the source code". So in any case you need to be aware of the definition in order to know what the term means.
And there is yet another difference. Free software (in the FSF definition) grants you four basic rights. Open source sometimes also does this, but it is much more a development model. Open source promoters will tell you that their way makes development superior because everyone can look at the code (and in some cases even improve it). A promoter of free software will tell you that free software will grant you the rights that you should have with every software you use.
Right now, this means you can do the same with software coming from either group, but the motivation behind it is completely different.
I have to agree though, almost everyone not familiar with the term free software will understand it like freeware. However, this does not mean free cannot have other meanings, because a free citizen is certainly something else than free beer. And freedom fries are not the same as free fries.
But still, RMS is right that although the term "open source" was thought to reduce the ambiguity of the term "free software", it is now often used in a way which focuses on the development model, i.e. you can look at the code (or even change it), but does not emphasize the freedom that should come with it.
I agree that in many cases there won't be much of a difference, but when you look closely, open source is unfortunately also often used in a way that does not grant users the four rights that free software guarantees them.
I would really love to have a term that is absolutely clear, but right now we have two ambiguous terms.
The difference between free software and open source according to Richard Stallman is not a matter of the chosen license. MIT/BSD and so on are all regarded as free software by the FSF.
The difference between free software and open source is the focus. While free software (in the RMS definition) means the user has to have certain rights when he receives software (the four freedoms), open source is more a model of development. While both can mean the same, open source is also used by companies for proprietary software of which the source code is published. So, you're not allowed to change the code, but it is still open because you can look at it.
Nevertheless, Gate's definition is indeed a little strange.
While I agree with your general conclusion that Sega would probably still have given up hardware production, I disagree at one point. The Saturn was originally designed as a 2D machine, but it was completely redesigned before its release. When it was released, it was a powerful 3D machine with at least as much power as the PlayStation. The problem was, the Saturn used three main processors and was difficult to program. The PS on the other side, could be programmed very easily. This was the real problem the Saturn had, not its hardware power.
The GNU/Linux operating system is not a real UNIX because it doesn't descend from Unix, like for example BSD does. Furthermore, it is not registered as Single UNIX Specification compliant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification). Another argument might be that GNU even stands for Gnu's not Unix.
That being said, it doesn't mean GNU/Linux would behave differently than UNIX in many cases. After all, GNU has been designed to be a full UNIX substitute.
The bad thing that isn't mentioned, is that some countries in the EU already have adopted the US life+70 years term. For example in Germany, it is exactly the same rule. Making copyright law univeral across the EU would be a great success if it would decrease this term, but actually I don't think the EU has done much for its citizens in terms of copyright or ISP filters. The article is simply wrong about this because many things that are mentioned haven't actually been decided yet.
I think you're right and what you describe is actually what I do. Often people think this is just a personal grudge towards Microsoft, but I always keep on trying to persuade them. At the same time, there are people who I believe will never care and I don't waste my time on them. People who share some important values with me in everyday life can probably be persuaded in the long run.
I see your point and I think you are right. It's just that I have experienced that people who do not care about choice or freedom, are often so into Microsoft (or Adobe) products that they perceive this software and its formats as the standard. Everything else is just non-standard. It has often been impossible to convince them of the need for free standards. Still, I will keep on trying.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. However, there is really no reason to trust other developers of non-free software. Only free software shifts the power from the developer to the user so there is a balance. With non-free software, you never know what you get and from experience we know we get a lot of hidden non-features. With free software this is still possible, but it is less likely and we, the users, can do something about any problem we discover.
I agree with your statement that there is a difference between morality and legality. But legality without morality is not oppression.
Legality is the state in which people have to do what is right because they would face a penalty otherwise (in order to combine everyone's personal freedom). Morality goes further than that because morality does not just look at people's actions but also at people's motivation, their thinking, etc. Legality can be enforced by a state, morality cannot because no one can actually make someone else think a certain way. (I can prevent them from saying what they think, but their inner convictions cannot be controlled by anyone.) There are of course actual states that try to regulate the morality of their citizens but such attempts are futile. That is why actual laws can never be based on morality.
That said, actual laws need to comply with legality and since morality demands the same things as legality (plus things regarding motivation etc.), laws that are in accordance with legality are also in accordance with morality (but do not cover all areas that morality does).
So that means legality and morality are two mostly independent systems and while I would rather live in a moral world, I have to (and can) deal with the fact that I live in a world with people who are not completely moral and since morality cannot be enforced, I have to settle for legality (which is enough most of the time because it guarantees my freedom).
I totally agree with you in respect to copyright being unjustifiably used against society, though.
it's making everyone else's vote count as 1/6th the vote of people "selected" by the government.
If that was the case, cumulative voting would be bad, yes. But it doesn't work that way. What cumulative voting is, it gives everyone more votes to distribute among candidates. So everyone's vote is basically split into fractions, but everyone's ballot has the same weight overall. So if I (and everyone else) got 10 votes, I might chose to give 3 (respectively 3/10 of my vote) votes to candidate A, 2 (2/10) to candidate C, D, and J and 1 (1/10) vote to candidate X. This way, I can show that I like candidate A the most, but I'm also ok with candidates C, D, J, and X, but not with everyone else on the ballot.
I really don't get it. I have watched a couple of games so far and even though my hearing is good, I didn't feel like there was an unusual high level of noise in those games. The commentator is obviously always louder than the background noise because the station creates the audio mix that way. And for the sound of the vuvuzelas: It's an unusual sound, but at least on TV doesn't seem to be any louder than other noisemakers spectators often use. It seems to me that using horns and other noisemakers have been a part of soccer games for quite some time and the vuvuzelas, traditional or not, are just another instance of a noisemaker. They might be louder in the stadium, but on TV, they don't bother me at all.
Unfortunately, you're trying to use "technical difficulties" as a term to make it sound as if it was all unavoidable and just a complete accident rather than saying "yeah, the rights management fucked itself again. It's a known issue and completely unnecessary but that's what's causing the problems."
But I was trying to explain that it was avoidable and DRM "fucked itself up again". I don't disagree with you; I think we just have a different understanding of the term "licensing issues".
There are two different reasons for licensing issues: One are merely technical reasons (the system is somehow broken). The other one is that the system legitimately refuses to work, for example because someone didn't pay the licensing fee. The poster I replied to suggested that the theater or the DRM service had not paid for the license and I was trying to argue that this was not the case, but that the system itself was/is broken.
So what I did was restrict the term "licensing issue" to the meaning "the system is working correctly, but it cannot play the movie because we do not have the right to show it". Maybe this usage is too narrow. Sorry about that! I hope I could clarify what I meant.
No, it is not a licensing problem. I read the German article and it clearly states that everyone paid, but the company providing the final keys (it is a process with several stages) could not produce the correct key. It was due to technical difficulties, not licensing issues.
Here is my non-Google translation of the important part that explains what went wrong technically (sorry for the slightly unidiomatic English; I tried to stay as close to the original as possible so that the text would not become my interpretation of the original):
Apparently, the DRM-keys for the film files were the cause of the problem. The distributor of 20th Century Fox sends the JPEG2000-encoded and AES-128-encrypted movies on external hard drives via courier. After that, the data (in the case of Avatar 150 GByte) needs to be copied to the theater server. Each digital projector/server combination generates a different certificate and transmits it to the DRM service in charge. The DRM service creates an individual key for each movie and sends it back to the theater. The key is always only valid for one copy of the film as well as one projector and can be limited to specific time periods and times of day.
Yesterday (Wednesday), the transmission of the correct keys for the 3D screenings did apparently not work in several cases, though. Theater technicians tried for several hours to decrypt the gigantic pile of data, but apparently the service responsible for the digital distribution of the film, Deluxe, could not provide valid keys yesterday.
Sounds to me like not everyone is identical... Wow, imagine that!
Sure. But since this thing only measures an increase or decrease in brainwave activity, it cannot be explained by a simple "We are all different.". That's why the fact caught my interest in the first place.
I saw the same exhibit at the World Fair in Hanover in 2000. I tried it with a friend, but found it to be working quite fine. I could relax and concentrate to steer the ball both equally well. We also tried the game when one of us did nothing, so we could actually see the effects of our own relaxation/concentration. Another friend had the same experience as you, though. I wonder what the reason for that could be.
The community is not the problem, I agree. But some customers (the guys in suits again) are and, as I wanted to point out, linguistically, the term "open source" can lead to confusion (as can the term "free software") (because people who come across it, don't necessarily know about the OSI definition). So for some customers, "open source" is just a development model. Whether that's good or bad depends on how much you care about people that just use the software know about your motivation for creating it.
I see your point and to sum up my position, here's a link to an article of which the section "Common misunderstandings of 'free software' and 'open source'" covers most of what I was trying to say (although I wouldn't agree the term "open source" was generally inferior).
I didn't read the whole article (I just came across it via Google), so please don't associate the rest of it with my point of view.
I also think the term "open source" was created to reduce the confusion of the term "free software" and not to protest Richard Stallman (with neither of which I would have a problem).
Ok, sorry, I forgot about that. I was quoting, Richard Stallman and I took it from the article called "The GNU Project". But the whole article makes it much clearer, that RMS believes "open source" was intended to create a term that is less ambiguous than "free software" and that "open source" and "free software" share many values, although there are some differences.
The only thing I disagreed with in your first statement was that RMS claimed free software was software that couldn't be made non-free. That wasn't the reason the term "open source" was created and I said that. Don't interpret other things into my statements.
- * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
- * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. (Access to the source code is a precondition to this.)
- * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
- * The freedom to improve the program, and to release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (Access to the source code is a precondigiton to this.)
So, it would be perfectly fine to make a proprietary fork of free software. RMS would say it is immoral, but it is not a requirement free software to restrict proprietary forks. If you don't believe me, look at the FSF website and see for yourself which licenses they define as proper free software licenses. There are BSD and MIT licenses which are by no means restrictive at all.The difference between "open source" and "free software" I was talking about is the following:
"the rhethoric of 'open source' focuses on the potential to make high-quality, powerful software, but shuns the ideas of freedom, community, and principle."
While I would not quite put it in those words, this is what I was talking about. I don't think there is something wrong with open source, nor would I claim everyone who identifies themselves with open source did not want to grant users the four basic freedoms, but still, there is a difference between the two terms. That's all I'm saying. No, we have two unambiguous terms for different kinds of free-as-in-speech software. One that depends on the law to keep it free, and one that depends on itself to keep it free. And that is simply incorrect. Free software is ambiguous, because the word free can have two different meanings. Open source software is ambiguous, because some people also use it in connection with proprietary software (i.e. you can look at the code, but cannot change it). Of course, the OSI defines the term "open source" quite clearly, but so does the FSF with "free software". And when you take either of the terms literally, you get it wrong, since "open source", in its literal meaning, means nothing more than "access to the source code". So in any case you need to be aware of the definition in order to know what the term means.
And there is yet another difference. Free software (in the FSF definition) grants you four basic rights. Open source sometimes also does this, but it is much more a development model. Open source promoters will tell you that their way makes development superior because everyone can look at the code (and in some cases even improve it). A promoter of free software will tell you that free software will grant you the rights that you should have with every software you use.
Right now, this means you can do the same with software coming from either group, but the motivation behind it is completely different.
I have to agree though, almost everyone not familiar with the term free software will understand it like freeware. However, this does not mean free cannot have other meanings, because a free citizen is certainly something else than free beer. And freedom fries are not the same as free fries.
But still, RMS is right that although the term "open source" was thought to reduce the ambiguity of the term "free software", it is now often used in a way which focuses on the development model, i.e. you can look at the code (or even change it), but does not emphasize the freedom that should come with it.
I agree that in many cases there won't be much of a difference, but when you look closely, open source is unfortunately also often used in a way that does not grant users the four rights that free software guarantees them.
I would really love to have a term that is absolutely clear, but right now we have two ambiguous terms.
The difference between free software and open source according to Richard Stallman is not a matter of the chosen license. MIT/BSD and so on are all regarded as free software by the FSF.
The difference between free software and open source is the focus. While free software (in the RMS definition) means the user has to have certain rights when he receives software (the four freedoms), open source is more a model of development. While both can mean the same, open source is also used by companies for proprietary software of which the source code is published. So, you're not allowed to change the code, but it is still open because you can look at it.
Nevertheless, Gate's definition is indeed a little strange.
While I agree with your general conclusion that Sega would probably still have given up hardware production, I disagree at one point.
The Saturn was originally designed as a 2D machine, but it was completely redesigned before its release. When it was released, it was a powerful 3D machine with at least as much power as the PlayStation. The problem was, the Saturn used three main processors and was difficult to program. The PS on the other side, could be programmed very easily. This was the real problem the Saturn had, not its hardware power.
The GNU/Linux operating system is not a real UNIX because it doesn't descend from Unix, like for example BSD does. Furthermore, it is not registered as Single UNIX Specification compliant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification).
Another argument might be that GNU even stands for Gnu's not Unix.
That being said, it doesn't mean GNU/Linux would behave differently than UNIX in many cases. After all, GNU has been designed to be a full UNIX substitute.
The bad thing that isn't mentioned, is that some countries in the EU already have adopted the US life+70 years term. For example in Germany, it is exactly the same rule. Making copyright law univeral across the EU would be a great success if it would decrease this term, but actually I don't think the EU has done much for its citizens in terms of copyright or ISP filters. The article is simply wrong about this because many things that are mentioned haven't actually been decided yet.
I think you're right and what you describe is actually what I do. Often people think this is just a personal grudge towards Microsoft, but I always keep on trying to persuade them. At the same time, there are people who I believe will never care and I don't waste my time on them. People who share some important values with me in everyday life can probably be persuaded in the long run.
I see your point and I think you are right. It's just that I have experienced that people who do not care about choice or freedom, are often so into Microsoft (or Adobe) products that they perceive this software and its formats as the standard. Everything else is just non-standard. It has often been impossible to convince them of the need for free standards. Still, I will keep on trying. :-)