Movement and Free Software and/vs. Open Source (was: Re: [ox-en] Re: Cooperation in Free Projects)
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:52:36 +0100
Hi StefanS and all!
I'm going to separate this into sub-threads.
2 weeks (17 days) ago Stefan Seefeld wrote:
Well, at this time I'd even be reluctant to speak of a 'Free Software Movement'
as a single homogenous body, with consistent goals. And replacing 'Free Software'
by 'Open Source' doesn't make it better.
Instead, one should realize that there are many different 'players' and 'stakeholders'
involved, often with partially contradicting, but luckily also overlapping interests.
Well, IMHO that's perfectly the definition of a movement. All this
applies to well-known movements. Look at movements like the left
movement, the piece movement, attac or the like. Even the early
capitalist movement was full of contradictions but yet it was able to
overcome a model of society. Movements are heterogenous and even
contradictory by definition. Yet there is some common denominator you
can extract from this heterogeneity. I think this is important to do
because this is the key to understand these phenomenons.
Insofar I agree with you that there actually are a lot of differences.
Insofar it is probably always possible to find a counter example for
everything. Would you agree with me that it makes sense to check for
the common denominators? Personally I think the common denominators
can only be found when looking at things in a more statistical way.
The whole FS vs. OSS discussion is a hint at that. (And I do believe it is meaningful
to discuss the difference between Free and Open, as these terms are used here, often
polemically.)
Certainly true. I'd say that these are two currents in one movement.
And in some respect well distinguishable currents.
Did you read Steven Weber's book I recently posted a long recension
for? I'd be very interested in your opinion on his thoughts.
What we seem to be discussing here, and what all those projects thus have in
common, is that the result of the work is Free Software, i.e. the product is
freely distributable (where Free is defined in roughly the terms as discussed
at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html).
This is certainly the biggest common denominator.
Yesterday Stefan Seefeld wrote:
I also suggested (in a different mail, I believe) to distinguish between
'Free Software' and 'Open Source', not on ideological grounds, but to
be able to differentiate the various aspects that play a role here.
Can you give us an idea what you are thinking how this can be
characterized?
For example, Free Software as a legal framework doesn't imply any particular
Relations or Mode of Production. However, it is a requirement for Open Source
Software (as a process) to happen.
To me this is an open question. In theory I'd agree with you but what
we can see in practice is that this legal framework seems to have some
consequences for the way projects are done.
To use my favorite comparsion: In theory capitalist production could
probably have been down in a perfectly feudal framework - and I think
it even has been tried. Nonetheless it turned out that this was not
sustainable.
Mit Freien Grüßen
Stefan
--
Please note this message is written on an offline laptop
and send out in the evening of the day it is written. It
does not take any information into account which may have
reached my mailbox since yesterday evening.
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de