Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:36:23 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez <address@hidden> wrote:

> I suggest you regard official FSFE's positions from their website in:
> https://fsfe.org/about/basics/freesoftware
> https://fsfe.org/documents/whyfs-howto
> And disregard previous statements from FSFE officers that present very 
> different positions from those.

I don't see different positions between those documents and the
previous statements. The FSFE says (from
https://fsfe.org/about/basics/freesoftware.en.html)

"The goal was to seek fast commercialisation of Free Software and
acceptance of Free Software by the companies and venture capitalists of
the booming new economy. As a means to this end, they made a conscious
decision to leave aside all long-term issues (such as philosophy,
ethics and social effects) related to Free Software, feeling these
posed obstacles in the way of rapid acceptance by economy. They
proposed to focus on technical advantages only

Often used in good faith by people who refer to what Free Software
stands for, the term "Open Source" - originally defined to mean the
same thing as Free Software in terms of licenses and implementation -
has seen inflationary usage. "

This is exactly what FSFE representatives are telling.

Now the "FSF version" from
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

"In 1998, a part of the free software community splintered off and
began campaigning in the name of “open source.” The term was originally
proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free
software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical views quite
different from those of the free software movement.

Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing
campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives
by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising
issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other
supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and
social values."

I hope you notice the difference between those views. FSFE says, open
source supporters made a tactical decision to leave aside ethical
values. FSF says they rejected the ethical values. There is a
difference between "leaving aside" (meaning: you don't say, but you
still agree silently with a view) and "reject" (meaning: you are
opposed to a view). Additionally FSFE says that "open Source" is "often
used in good faith(!) by people who refer to what Free Software stands
for". 

As a consequence FSFE says: We think, that people who use the term
"open source" are most likely can be "converted" to be free software
supporters, because they are just using the wrong term and don't know
enough about the ethical values.

FSF says: We gave up on "open source" supporters, because they reject
our ideas and have very different ideas.