[LUAU] the term "open source" is dead, says Eben Moglen

[Jim Thompson]

On Nov 24, 2006, at 10:02 AM, Hawaii Linux Institute wrote:

> Jimen Ching wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Julian Yap wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 13:25 -1000, Jimen Ching wrote:
>>>> YOU don't NEED to care.  A lot of people don't NEED to care.  As
>>>> long as
>>>> there are people who do care and are willing to fight for those  
>>>> rights.
>>>> You'll continue to enjoy the benefits.  That's how it worked in the
>>>> past.
>>>> That's how it's going to work in the future.  What you're seeing  
>>>> now is
>>>> just the process...
>>>
>>> That takes the view that there's enough people fighting for  
>>> freedom in
>>> the first place and that they will actually win.
>>
>> True.  Are you saying this view is wrong semantically, wrong
>> ethically, or wrong in some other way?
>>
>> It's my observation that the number of people who fight (meaning
>> actively doing something beyond writing to your congressman) are a  
>> lot
>> less than the number of people who benefit.  Are you suggesting
>> otherwise?
>>
>> Also, when I said peopled aren't needed to care about these  
>> issues, it
>> doesn't mean they aren't wanted.  If people want to join the fight,
>> I'm sure they will be welcomed.
>>
>> --jc
>
> Good point Jimen.
>
> I want to add that, when LUAU was being coagulated, one of the names
> being tossed around was LUAW (Linux, Unix, And Windows).  There was
> never any intent to exclude non-Free or even proprietary software.
> Indeed, many of the early participants (e.g., founders of Digital
> Island, World Place, Lava Net, etc.) based their business on either  
> Unix
> or Windows NT.

Which is fine.

> Whether we are using proprietary, or "open" (whatever that means), or
> "free" (again, whatever that means) software, should be a business
> choice, to be dictated by our needs, our locally unique business
> environment, and/or our personal tastes.

Free has a very specific meaning here.  'Open', far less so.

You do great injustice to pretend otherwise.

Your "business choice" doesn't get to trample on my rights,  
however.   Thats not restricted to the realm of software, either.

> It is probably OK to promote one form of licensing in this forum.   
> But doing too much of that (i.e.,
> someone thinks his/her "freedom" is more important than that of  
> others)
> runs the risk of driving potential participants away, something  
> that, I
> believe, none of us has a right to do.

If my freedom more important than yours?  No, and yours isn't more  
important than mine, thanks.

> Personally I got pissed off when someone keeps trying to impose his or
> her belief on me.  And keep in mind that this is supposed to be a
> low-profile, AnonymoUs forum.  There is no U in the word  
> "Advocate".  Wayne

Wait, aren't you trying to impose your belief on me?

Jim