That's, of course, assuming the false dichtomy of "communism vs. pseudocapitalism", or "proprietary vs. GPL". It also assumes that the closed-source companies are mostly mustache twirling villains looking to make a dollar by any means necessary...which is true of some and not of others.
In reality, there's more complexity to it. A true free market system (ergo why I said "PSEUDO-capitalism") allows anyone to create and compete, without unfair advantage. We could (but shouldn't here) debate whether that actually exists, but that's the aim that open source and the OSI aim for. It isn't 'everyone must horde' (pseudocapitalism) nor 'everyone must forcefully share' (communism), but simply that we should be open to the idea of sharing, of building bridges.
Comparing ends, FSF and OSI are very similar. Comparing means, it's the difference between assuming the worst about people's motivations, and assuming the best. Only one of those means breeds collaboration and community.
Again, as I said in my other comment, GPL has its place. Actually, so does proprietary - it isn't always "I want to limit freedom, muahaha", it's often "there is no way to keep my company operational under an open source model." Try selling an open source game, you'll see what I mean. ;)
Not really wanting to start anything about Capitalism-Communism but just refer that comment :) I get your point. The major issue with this post is the never use it thing that I don't really share.
And I get the fact that having a company under open source is hard and sometime almost impossible. Selling a open source game is a good point. Although not as a way of living. Having an open source game is a good project for other reasons more than to monetize it.
I've been a professional C, Perl, PHP and Python developer.
I'm an ex-sysadmin from the late 20th century.
These days I do more Javascript and CSS and whatnot, and promote UX and accessibility.
Yes, it's a problem that the post says that "free" should mean the freedom to be non-free, and yet discourages the idea that I should be free to use GPL, entirely from a moral stance.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
That's, of course, assuming the false dichtomy of "communism vs. pseudocapitalism", or "proprietary vs. GPL". It also assumes that the closed-source companies are mostly mustache twirling villains looking to make a dollar by any means necessary...which is true of some and not of others.
In reality, there's more complexity to it. A true free market system (ergo why I said "PSEUDO-capitalism") allows anyone to create and compete, without unfair advantage. We could (but shouldn't here) debate whether that actually exists, but that's the aim that open source and the OSI aim for. It isn't 'everyone must horde' (pseudocapitalism) nor 'everyone must forcefully share' (communism), but simply that we should be open to the idea of sharing, of building bridges.
Comparing ends, FSF and OSI are very similar. Comparing means, it's the difference between assuming the worst about people's motivations, and assuming the best. Only one of those means breeds collaboration and community.
Again, as I said in my other comment, GPL has its place. Actually, so does proprietary - it isn't always "I want to limit freedom, muahaha", it's often "there is no way to keep my company operational under an open source model." Try selling an open source game, you'll see what I mean. ;)
Not really wanting to start anything about Capitalism-Communism but just refer that comment :) I get your point. The major issue with this post is the
never use itthing that I don't really share.And I get the fact that having a company under open source is hard and sometime almost impossible. Selling a open source game is a good point. Although not as a way of living. Having an open source game is a good project for other reasons more than to monetize it.
Yeah, "never use it" is overkill, but the arguments are ones that we've needed brought out in the open for a while.
Yes, it's a problem that the post says that "free" should mean the freedom to be non-free, and yet discourages the idea that I should be free to use GPL, entirely from a moral stance.