----- Forwarded message from Russ Nelson nelson@crynwr.com -----
From: Russ Nelson nelson@crynwr.com Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:55:49 -0400 To: linuxers-owner@mm.glug-bom.org Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] FW: [OT] - OSS Philosophy Explained X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 19) "Constant Variable" XEmacs Lucid
Hi. Would you ensure that my email gets to the mailing list? Thank you. -russ
linuxers-owner@mm.glug-bom.org writes:
You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at linuxers-owner@mm.glug-bom.org.
Received: from pdam.crynwr.com ([192.203.178.8] helo=ns2.crynwr.com ident=qmailr) by cc4.tifr.res.in with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1FY7q1-00082w-Ke for linuxers@mm.glug-bom.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 02:09:32 +0530 Received: (qmail 1680 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2006 20:39:20 -0000 Received: from rrcs-72-43-17-50.nys.biz.rr.com (HELO desk.crynwr.com) (72.43.17.50) by pdam.crynwr.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2006 20:39:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 29917 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2006 20:39:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO desk.crynwr.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Apr 2006 20:39:43 -0000 Received: (from nelson@localhost) by desk.crynwr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k3OKdg1e029913; Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:39:42 -0400 From: Russ Nelson nelson@crynwr.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: 17485.14222.211817.868081@desk.crynwr.com Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:39:42 -0400 To: "Nagarjuna G." nagarjun@gnowledge.org Cc: "GNU/Linux Users Group, Mumbai, India" linuxers@mm.glug-bom.org In-Reply-To: 20060424194645.28609.qmail@desk.crynwr.com References: 20060424194645.28609.qmail@desk.crynwr.com X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 19) "Constant Variable" XEmacs Lucid X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.203.178.8 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: nelson@desk.crynwr.com Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] FW: [OT] - OSS Philosophy Explained X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on cc4.tifr.res.in X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.3 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 (built Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:44:12 +0100) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on cc4.tifr.res.in)
Hi. I'm Russell Nelson, a founding member of the OSI board of directors. I travel to Mumbai from time to time, and I would be extremely pleased to address you directly on this matter. Please tell me when is the next Linux-centric conference in Mumbai, and I'll try to wrangle my way there as a speaker. Hopefully they'll have fixed the toy train up to Matheran by then.
Nagarjuna: if you don't see this on the mailing list (because I'm not subscribed to the list) please do me the courtesy of forwarding it to the list.
BCC'ed to the rest of the OSI board.
Nagarjuna G. writes:
This is a reply to the entire thread so far, so not quoting any of them.
I wish to clarify the difference by example, between OSS and <free> (swatantra/mukta/ajadi) software.
Alas, your example is incorrect. Pine isn't open source, as it doesn't use an OSI-approved open source license. Neither is scilab. They both claim that they are open source, but please .... if you want Open Source Software, look for the OSI-Approved trademark. If you don't see it, then you should assume that the software is not open source.
You may take this to be a flaw of the term "Open Source", but do please remember that Microsoft distributes free software. You know, free as in Kingfisher.
Therefore, all <free> software is open source, but not vice versa. So, free software is a proper subset of open source software.
Nope. The mapping of free software to open source software is one to one and onto.
The use of the term 'open source' by the OSI may have created a nice term for the tongue, but at the cost of freedom.
Please see my blog entry: http://blog.russnelson.com/opensource/the-price-of-freedom.html
Still warm off the presses -- I wrote it for you. Custom blogging, in real time.
Still, it is surprising that OSI advocates seldom talk of the values like freedom.
We don't, and we don't tell people why either. But I'll let you in on the secret. Richard appeals to intellectuals by advocating for the concept of freedom. Intellectuals constitute a minority, say 10% of the population. We appeal to the majority by advocating for the value of freedom. The other 90% of the population whom Richard cannot reach will be convinced by the experience of freedom rather than the concept of freedom.
I want to be clear here: the 10% of the population who are intellectuals (which I expect includes most members of glug-bom), are MOST effectively reached by Richard's advocacy. We need him. We do not dismiss him. He says that he doesn't need us, and he asks you to dismiss us by claiming that freedom is not important to us. We prefer to push the experience of freedom over the concept and term "freedom".
Shuzan held out his short staff and said "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now, what do you wish to call it?"
Experienced any freedom lately?
-- --my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com | A computer without Python is Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | like a CPU without memory: 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | it runs, but you can't do Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | anything useful with it.
----- End forwarded message -----