B: Oh really?! "but you should not come bare handed" you should lay a good egg yourself!

If people want to make money selling rotten eggs, you make it. That requires shaping it as a philosophy too?! Interesting!

> We’re not going to convert the world to free software in one fell
> swoop. It will be done in dribs and drabs over a period of time. We
> may never get rid of proprietary software completely, though I do
> believe we will get to a state where people can do everything they
> need and want to do on a computer using FOSS. But we’re not
> there. We’re close to the point where people can do all of the
> basics, but we haven’t met all the demands of “regular” users yet.

Thats the best brain-washer you could write?

I have read similar things in stories..in the dialogs of kidnappers
"Common, here is the candy, take it, come to me, walk to me i'll give
you the candy!"

I'm afraid we have to agree to disagree. I still hold that your statements are incorrect, because you are extrapolating the wrong conclusions. Saying, for example, that if a company acts in its own best interest that it "doesn't care about the effect on other distributions," is false. It may not be the top priority, but that is not the same thing as saying it "does not care." You're trying to impose a black and white picture on something that has shades of grey.

Although you confirm that most of my statements are incorrect, it appears that you go on to confirm all the traits of someone who supports open source and not free software:

1) I said free software advocates are against proprietary software (I have checked and this is a pretty clear fact). You state that free software advocacy shouldn't be against proprietary software. That is the position of an open source advocate.

2) I said that Linux wasn't a priority for the Apache Foundation, and you disagreed with me by saying "they see making Apache available across all platforms as a priority". So you disagree with by a agreeing with me that Linux isn't the *priority*.

3) I said "Novell does a patent deal with Microsoft because they don’t care about the effect on other distributions." And you disagree with me by replying, "Novell believes is good for putting Linux in the enterprise and also what’s good for its customers". Again confirming as far as my English reading skills go, that Novell does what is good for Novell.

I am not objecting to your support for open source, I was just trying to point out the reasons why there seems to be so much misundertsanding between open source and free software people.

It is hard to appreciate another community members point of view when you don't understand the basic principles that are guiding them. In the short time I have been following these discussions, I see this problem again and again.

I still think my original statements were accurate and I see your response as confirming them. Again, I would welcome a further response because my aim is to refine these statements and help bring some understanding to other conversations I participate in.

Thanks

Christian

There is nothing lousy about beseeching others to participate in expressing one's disinterest in what's being provided -- if there were then certainly your comments about what you do and do not want to hear from Mr Kuhn should likewise be considered "lousy".

There's a major difference there. If you're only "against" proprietary software, well, that's your right -- but I don't find that to be a terribly appealing world view. I don't support proprietary software, per se, but my "mission" is to make FOSS succeed so that I and others have access to software that meets my needs under license terms that I think are reasonable and fair across the board.

The Apache Foundation works with Microsoft not because "they don't see Linux as a priority," but because they see making Apache available across all platforms as a priority. Again, there's a difference in focus there.

Novell's agreement with Microsoft is focused on what Novell believes is good for putting Linux in the enterprise and also what's good for its customers (and therefore good for Novell's long term interests). And so on.

Having a world view that is only "against" proprietary software is fairly limited. In my opinion, if you approach the world like that, you're not going to succeed.

I have been following a number of discussions like this recently and I think it would be worthwhile stating what I see. Can you tell me if you think these statements are correct:

Free software advocacy is about an ethical and principled stand against proprietary software. Any use of proprietary software is therefore unethical to free software advocates. Free software advocates want to have an operating system that is fully free, and they want to be able to do any job in society using free software. They also want you to share their values, and advocate as such.

Open Source advocates want to have access to the source code under an appropriate open source license as they believe that they can then build better quality software. They aren't against proprietary software. They are happy to use proprietary software. They don't have any community based end goals - like having a fully free operating system. They really just want the project they are working on to be successful and the best. If that helps the free software movement - they are OK with that, but it isn't a priority.

Open source projects tend to operate independently of each other as they don't have any shared goals. This can infuriate free software advocates who see activity that harms their goals:

The Apache Foundation working with Microsoft because they don't see Linux as a priority.

Novell does a patent deal with Microsoft because they don't care about the effect on other distributions.

Miguel de Icaza promotes Mono and Microsoft because he doesn't care that software patents might effect other distributors.

Thanks

Christian