Re: Ada is getting more popular!

["Thomas Løcke" <tl@ada-dk.org>]

On 2010-10-27 22:46, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> Yes, but the GPL says nothing different about what Colin Paul pointed out.


I know.

I understand the GPL and I understand the OSI definition.

It just so happens that I think of open source in broader terms. When I
buy a piece of software, I consider it open source if I have access to
the source, if I can freely tinker with it for my own needs and if I can
keep maintaining the software after official support has been dropped
for it by the vendor. Redistribution is not a requirement.

 From now on, if I ever engage in a discussion similar to this, I'll name
this specific brand of open source BOP: Business Open Source.  :D


> Result : big crisis (some near to injuries) all over the place, and
> people shouting “if this is not free, this is not open source, because
> Richard Stallman said so, and all people though this was a very clever
> idea (they love him very for that).


The FOSS movement is, IMHO, on to something. I might not agree with
everything that's coming from RS, but I do like the fact that him and
his people are trying to rid the world of black box software.

If I hire a musician to compose something, the end result is fully
visible to me. I can even check out some of the artists former work,
to help me judge the quality of his/her work. My ability to do so does
not in any way impede on the composers copyright.

If I hire a carpenter to design and build me a house, I can see what he
is doing and I'm not forced to call the same carpenter 5 years later
just because I need to change a window. My ability to do so does not
change the carpenters copyright. The house is still his design, and I
just can't go building verbatim copies of his design without him
granting me license to do so.

If I buy a car, I can change it as I see fit. I can take it apart and
see how it works. I can customize it to suit my specific needs. This
does not change the fact that I can't start my own car production and
freely build copies of the car. The vendor is protected by the
copyright laws.

But when buying software, I'm usually kept in the dark. No tinkering,
no learning, no self-maintenance, no nothing. It's a black box. It's
hard to judge the quality of a vendors products, when you can't actually
see the product.

I've heard a lot of excuses for this black box mentality, and all of 
them suck.


> So try to attack the another way, and replied “but why not try to see
> both the price and the open-source characteristic apart ?” I feel
> indeed, price is a trait and open-source is another trait, and based on
> this (if this were not different things, the same word could be used to
> express both) I asked them : what is the most important for you in, say,
> Linux : “the price which is zero, or its open-source trait”. Short talk
> : impossible to get a single answer to this question, all replies was of
> the form “open-source = free, why don't you want to say all every one
> tell you here ?”. No way to make them understand these are two different
> traits (technically, these are).


The most important aspect of Linux, to me, is the freedom it gives me.

I don't care about the price. I pay for each and every Slackware update.

I like not being bound to any one vendor. I like knowing that Linux will
probably exist in some form or another in many years. I like to know
that I've build my companys IT infrastructure on something that isn't
controlled by one vendor and said vendors more or less fickle
share-holders.

I like the fact that if the need should ever arise, I can hire X amount
of programmers and have them implement whatever it is _my_ business
needs.

Freedom.


> Open-source and free are simply synonymous all over the web and in near
> to all minds.


You are probably right.

-- 
Regards,
Thomas Løcke

Email: tl at ada-dk.org
Web: http:ada-dk.org
IRC nick: ThomasLocke