Posted by: Anonymous
on August 11, 2007 12:17 AM
It's very simple.
Open source is like a (relatively) free market - you do what you want. To the degree that what you do helps others, you prosper. But we'll put some restrictions on what you do in order to encourage you to do what we want.
The FSF is like socialism - or state-enforced liberalism, take your pick: we'll MAKE you do what WE want you to do to help others.
Linux likes the GPLv2 which requires that source code be provided AND that products which incorporate source code under the GPL also provide the enhanced source code. This is closer to the FSF software model than a truly free market - but not so close as GPLv3 is.
In my view, relying on a license model to change the world is fundamentally flawed. In that respect, I disagree with both Linus and Stallman. In both cases, they are in some sense, "coercing" people to do what they want with their product - by withholding that product unless an agreement to do what they want is made. I disagree with that. In my view, the only "true" freedom is: you trade fairly and without restrictions. Which means, either give away the product as public domain or charge for it in the commercial sense but without restrictions on use and without legal enforcement of "intellectual property."
That is the ONLY way to truly speed up the development of inventions to benefit the species and to empower individuals.
But nobody has the nerve to live in a society organized under those lines - because they're afraid they wouldn't be able to compete.