The Role and Value of Truly Free Linux Distributions

First off I would like to say it was nice to read something from Roy that was not steeped in vitriol. It gives me hope that there is something other than a knee jerk reactionary sitting at the other end of his keyboard.

That being said, I Would like to take the opportunity to lay a different perspective on the article. If I were to read it as an outsider, knowing nothing about Linux, I would have thought to myself that nVidia cards were 100% unusable without the binary blob from the tone of the article. There was no mention at all the cards could operate without that blob. No mention that there is an open source OpenGL driver in the works, or that the nv or vesa driver works just fine if one does not need 3D for operation.

Overall it was a good article, just slightly incomplete IMHO. While I tend to disagree with Roy and others in the Free Software camp, I would encourage him to write along the lines of what he did here, in a thoughtful, logical, non reactionary way. Who knows, you may even manage to convince me that Free Software is superior to Open Source Software.

Unlikely, however if it can be done without soap boxing and grandstanding, then I will at least listen to what you have to say with an open mind. So from one that is normally critical of your writings, Good Job Roy.

>Who knows, you may even manage to convince me that Free Software is superior to Open Source Software.

Wouldn't that require, at some point, a listing of Free software that is not also Open Source software?

Or vice versa?

Unless, of course, you're not referring to software at all.

I was referring to the philosophical difference between RMS/FSF Free Software and the OSI/Linus Open Source Software definitions. I do not personally subscribe to the theory that it is immoral to release code under an open source license. OSS is the wiser choice IMHO, but I make no moral judgment about a developers freedom to release their software as they see fit.

>I do not personally subscribe to the theory that it is immoral to release code under an open source license.

Are you confused, or just me? Even RMS wouldn't call it "immoral" to release code under an open source license - "open source" was (originally) a more corporate-friendly term for Free Software. I assume you are referring to his belief that it is immoral to release software as non-Free?

The biggest difference between the "Free Software" camp and the "Open Source" camp is usually whether one prefers a copyleft or non-copyleft license. That's an artificial line of demarcation, but the real line is probably over whether it is immoral to license software under non-Free terms. :-)

Sorry, I mis typed and didn't catch it, there was supposed to be a non- in there.

To fix the comment:

I do not personally subscribe to the theory that it is immoral to release code under a non-open source license.

*shamefaced grin*

So no, I'm not insane, just bad at proof reading.

>So no, I'm not insane, just bad at proof reading.

I think bad at proof reading is ample evidence of not insane.

> I think bad at proof reading is ample evidence of not insane.

Are you sure of that, Dino. I've been known to be bad at proof reading. :)

Thanks for clearing that up azerthoth. I would hate to put you in the same class as jdixon. :-p