On Jul 27, 2008, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > You know, I don't want to be rude or hostile in any way, but I just > can't help this feeling that the (noble) reasons you state above are > somehow in a disharmony with your behavior (ie. your posts) in this > thread. I've already covered the why elsewhere in the thread, and even in the message you responded, but how about we save that part of the debate for later, just so that nobody thinks you're just resorting to ad hominem and red herrings to draw attention away from our debate on factual matters? My intentions or even my honesty shouldn't matter at all to assess the truth of my points, at least as long as there's no doubt as to the correctness of the evidence I present. It's all verifiable anyway. > I am also a believer in FOSS and all that, This doesn't make much sense, especially when FS and OSS have conflicting goals, as they do in this case. > If there were a genuine credit to be appropriately given to GNU, I would > expect the general public to recognize that spontaneously over time, Unless there was a conspiracy to deny it that credit, as you say. Now take it straight from the horse's mouth: The whole "Open Source" *renaming* was done largely _exactly_ because people wanted to distance themselves from the FSF. http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161 First, rename the software and take credit for it (1992-today), then make a fuss that the FSF is trying to rename their kernel rather than asking for the name of the OS to be restored (~1994-today), then use the leverage and the minor-presented-as-full achievement of building such a great operating system to *rename* the movement and mine its goals even further (1998-today). Renamer, and proud of it. But renaming back, or at least to something fair, no, that couldn't be permitted, because it would help promote the agenda they wanted to subvert, obviate and demean. Is "hijack" too strong a term? Making it seem like it was the self-proclaimed "pragmatic" approach of sacrificing the fundamental goals of the original movement that enabled and led to the development of a nearly-complete system and made it valuable for people and businesses to use. Indeed, part of the commercial success of it stems precisely from this subversion of the movement and sacrificing of its essential goals. That's precisely because many big businesses saw an opportunity to use it to mine existing monopolies to establish their own, on other levels, by as much as failing to abide by the fundamental issues that motivated the creation of most of the software. How's that for conspiracy theories? http://www.digitalcitizen.info/2006/09/30/why-cant-free-software-and-open-source-advocates-just-get-along/ -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
