On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 18:38, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote: > Auke Jilderda wrote: > > 1. Free Software is geared towards idealism whereas Open Source aims > > for pragmatism. In my opinion, both are essential to making this the > > succes it is. (Personally, I tend a bit more towards Open Source so > > I use that term but you can replace the term with Free Software if > > you like.) > > I don't think it breaks down that way. I find the implementation of Free > Software ideals to be eminently practical. But I'm struck by the language > you use in your post: With all your talk about the value of software > freedom, I wonder if you understand the two movements well enough to be sure > you're backing the movement that speaks to your interests. Suggesting one > can merely replace "Open Source" with "Free Software" and still end up with > a sensible statement further suggests you misunderstand the difference > between these two movements.
Some of us see the debate between open source and free software as a debate about the relative importance of the issues rather than a disagreement on the issues themselves. Most open source people have ethical disagreements about the tactics proprietary software vendors use to preserve their status, and most free software people believe that their openness results in higher-quality software. In both cases, the practical effect is the same; I expect this was the point of the paragraph you responded to. If there is any issue that truly separates the two camps, it is probably the level of acceptable restrictions an owner of software may place on users. Free software people will be more likely to consider any non-free restriction to be immoral, while open source people are likely to tolerate some level of proprietary restriction (with the addendum that open source software is preferable on practical grounds).
