Blogs

RedMonk

Skip to content

links for 2006-09-20

rev="post-378" 2 Comments

Categories: Links.

By cote
— September 20, 2006 at 2:21 am
Comment Feed

2 Responses

  1. John Mark's opinions miss the bar completely.

    "Open source" is important so that I or others can verify that my software isn't violating my privacy the way Real Networks, Microsoft, et al like to. The people pushing the hardest for restricting the freedoms of software users usually make the worst stuff.

    Microsoft, MPAA, RIAA — all enemies of reasonable freedoms in using computers and digital content, all enemies of open and fair standards. So if someone is saying open source is bad or thinks it should only be judged on how effective it is for producing software and ignoring the actual freedom issue essential to the free software movement, they're likely selling something, and it probably sucks — i.e., Windows, Hollywood movies, or pop music.

    Warren Henning — September 19, 2006 @ 11:47 pm —

  2. Warren: You miss my point completely, and you simultaneously make my point for me by seeming to only grasp a binary off/on position of free software vs. proprietary. The whole point of that article was to explore the potential middle ground that's not quite open source, as defined by the OSI, but not oppressive, as in current schemes employed by Microsoft and many others. My conclusion is that, ultimately, there is a middle ground that isn't quite open source, but there's no real advantage to remaining proprietary or going open source at that point. I think you need to read it again… either that or I need to rewrite :@)

    Oh and by the way, I'm a free software fan, not an open source advocate. You should probably understand that subtle difference before reading my post again.

    John Mark Walker — September 20, 2006 @ 9:21 am —