My issue with free software is the ideology. I tend to have mixed feelings about movements that claim to absolutely know what's good for humanity, no matter how noble the cause. I believe that if given the power to reach their goals we'd notice that a fraction of that same humanity will still end up suffering some consequences. Unless you can acknowledge that I cannot be a firm supporter.
In the context of software, I'm more comfortable with open source because it has shown that it is aware of the "it depends" nature of the field today, and is capable to adapt to get to 60% of the goals _right now_ by reaching some compromises, rather than going nowhere because of principles.
Some open source licenses can indeed be too restrictive, but as Stallman says himself Fortunately, few programs use such licenses. However, depending on your point of view free software as an ideology can also be too restrictive.
Change is gradual and happens over time, but you need to give a chance to different parties to warm up to unfamiliar ideas. Open source accomplishes this. Free software as an ideology does too, albeit at a much slower pace.
I think it's Max Planck who observed that (I'm paraphrasing) the world doesn't change because old smart people tend to warm up to new ideas, it does because as they die out, growing generations are familiarized with these same new ideas from the start. As I see more startups (and new executives from old companies) embracing open source, I have to concur.
I understand Stallman's advocacy here and am even glad that it has perdured the way it has. It is a reminder of an ideal world towards which I feel open source actually strives to get. I'm still personally convinced that open source will be able to more successfully reach these goals with its flexibility than free software would with its rigidness.
In the context of software, I'm more comfortable with open source because it has shown that it is aware of the "it depends" nature of the field today, and is capable to adapt to get to 60% of the goals _right now_ by reaching some compromises, rather than going nowhere because of principles.
This is the definiton of Open Source, a really short read http://opensource.org/docs/osd
To me it's good enough.
Some open source licenses can indeed be too restrictive, but as Stallman says himself Fortunately, few programs use such licenses. However, depending on your point of view free software as an ideology can also be too restrictive.
Change is gradual and happens over time, but you need to give a chance to different parties to warm up to unfamiliar ideas. Open source accomplishes this. Free software as an ideology does too, albeit at a much slower pace.
I think it's Max Planck who observed that (I'm paraphrasing) the world doesn't change because old smart people tend to warm up to new ideas, it does because as they die out, growing generations are familiarized with these same new ideas from the start. As I see more startups (and new executives from old companies) embracing open source, I have to concur.
I understand Stallman's advocacy here and am even glad that it has perdured the way it has. It is a reminder of an ideal world towards which I feel open source actually strives to get. I'm still personally convinced that open source will be able to more successfully reach these goals with its flexibility than free software would with its rigidness.