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

[Henry Jensen]

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:04:04 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez <address@hidden> wrote:


> > This is exactly what FSFE representatives are telling.
> 
> No. The previous expressions said there was no diference between 
> opensource and the Free Software movement. This expresses they are diferent.

No, FSFE never said that there is no difference between "Open Source
Movement" and the Free Software movement. It is crucial to distinct
between the terms and the movement. They said that the terms refer to
the same thing, but to different aspects.

> If you leave aside an ethical position, you are rejecting its value. It 
> is just a diplomatic way of saying the same thing.

No, it is something very different. Many christian organizations
provide help and care in other countries, even in islamic countries.
They act practical (e. g. provide food and medical care) but leave
aside christian ethical values (such as evangelize in the country).
That doesn't mean that they reject Christianity.

> Yes. Some people defend freedom but use the term opensource because they 
> have not understood what opensource implies. 

"Open Source" implies only that the source code is available, nothing
else. It is a pure technical term with no ethical value. Some people
seem to think that "open source" in fact has ethical values, just
opposite ethical values from the free software movement. That is simply
not true.

There are people who reject free software values. They may even use
GNU/Linux (often without knowing it), but they reject software
freedom. But this people aren't calling themselves "open source". On
the contrary, they even reject the term "Open Source", they refer to
Software Freedom as "Open Source Ideology". To them "Free Software" and
"Open Source" indeed are the same thing. I think that those people are
confused with "open source supporters".
 
> > 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.
> >
> 
> This is possible but seldom true.
> 
> I did not find that text on fsfe.org. Will you please cite the source? 

It is a logical conclusion, based on the FSFE documents. It is also
what the FSFE people are saying, including the FSFE president who I
spoke to last week. There was no objection to this at the FSFE meeting
I attended.

> It is equally my experience. Most people that have come to free software 
> for the technical values do not value freedom. 

That is not my experience. Most people who made a conscious technical
decision for "open source" can be told that free software is more than
technical advantage, that it also include ethical values. In fact, most
people come to free software for technical reasons in the first place.
I myself switched to GNU/Linux over 12 years ago because of the
technical disadvantages of the proprietary system I used before and
learned about software freedom later.

Like I said, there are some people who are using GNU/Linux more or less
"by accident". This people won't mind to switch back to a proprietary
system if it becomes technical better. I have met such people before,
they used to be GNU/Linux users but then switched to a proprietary
system made by Apple, because they found it to be technical superior.
At no time they identified themselves as "open source supporters". 
This aren't "open source" people, because they even rejected the term
"open source". 

We shouldn't accuse people who are using the term "open source" to be
against software freedom and as such be enemies of software freedom,
because that wouldn't do justice to them.