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

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

On 07/09/11 04:09, Henry Jensen wrote:
> 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.

These are your words:
> BTW: I recently had a discussion on this one with some people from the
> Free Software Foundation Europe, the FSF's sister organization in
> Europe. Many people at the FSFE have a different point of view on this.
>
> They prefer the term "free software" as well, but they believe that
> "open source" and "free software" is the same and they don't think that
> both "free software" and "open source" community have different goals.
> So "free software" and "open source" are considered as the same
> community at the FSFE. You see, the view on this topic is not
> homogeneous in the Free Software Community itself.



> > 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.

They do not leave it aside. It is their main concern. But they channel 
it through the trust that their collaboration brings among their 
"evangelized".

> > 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.

Opensource implies that the source code is available but open source 
proponents often urge people to use the license that most fits their 
technical ends ond not their global ends. This often gives the false 
asumtion of being practical.

> 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".

There are those cases too.

> > > 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.

This is a matter I cannot discuss now because it is being talked about 
between the FSFs. We will get an official position soon.

> > 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.

It is not common that information technology people can see the ethical 
issue because most often we like the technical aspects. It is rather an 
uncommon happening. People in search of ethics will usually agree with 
freedom. It is common among IT people that defend freedom to come to the 
ethics but most aren't in that group. That is the reason of the greater 
advancement of opensource among IT profesionals.

> 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.

There is no acusation. It is just a valuation of the situation from my 
personal point of view. In life, a generalization makes better decisions 
if care is to be taken to consider that there are some exceptions. I do 
not hold anything against people. I just have my own values and disagree 
with opensource which accepts nonfree software. I am in favor of free 
software which is against nonfree software and not against people. I 
value people.


--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero