Free Software ideology
I hate to admit this, but I’m a semi-closeted OSS hater. Not the software, in general, though the endless forks and 90% implementations that plague Linux irritate me to no end (getting better, as I see it from here). But the ideology drives me nuts. OSS works in the real world when it solves real problems, not because of the ideals driving the developers. I’m attracted to OSS because it makes better use of resources than any closed development model, and lets varied groups with different specific interests work together to make something really powerful.
The Debian “issue” drives me nuts because of the hole in the arguments put forth against having any restrictions on the trademarks. If the name doesn’t matter, and we shouldn’t endeavour to control it as a mark that people can trust, then why does Debian care? Just call it Debian Browser and be done with it. The only reason I can see for wanting to use the name is that we’ve already established it as something people recognize, and that people trust and want to use. If that’s the case, then they’re arguing for diluting the trademark that they themselves want to use because of its strength.
Not to mention, of course, that their own apparent trademark policy is “ask permission for any use other than distributing our official distribution on CD” and they have a closed committee just like ours that makes these decisions. I can’t ship a Debian-derived distro as “Debian” without permission, but they don’t want to grant us the same rights?
I’m so glad that I can focus on shipping software instead of this miasma of licensing and ideology!
Good post. I’m also of the belief that software is worthless until it does something good. Licensing alone doesn’t make software good. It makes good software better. Firefox would be good closed source. Firefox open source is better.
As far as the Debian issue goes, I don’t see why they don’t call it “Debian Browser”, and say it’s based on “Mozilla Technology” or something like that? Brand it to look good for their product, and be done with it.
The reason that OSS idealogy is required is because of the potential of improvement. Even if an OSS software is crappy it has the potential for getting better that CSS does not have.
As for the Debian issue, I agree; if it irks them so much, the source should be compiled into a binary and chuck it in with a new name and design.
But still you have to agree that mofo trademark policy/EULA is a little too constrictive when compared to other OSS projects.
Wanting all software to be free has nothing at all do to with the potential of OSS software. Linus certainly doesn’t care about the ideology, he cares about making better software.
A little too constrictive… no, I don’t have to agree to that. Those OSS projects concerned with branding etc tend to have very similar setups.
first thanks for removing the double post, I excel in making myself look like an idiot.
I dont care what Linus cares about, I am talking about why I care about OSS and OSS idealogy. All CSS software has the potential to be improved by its devs, all OSS software has the potential to be improved by everyone (they dont have to be a programer). That does not mean that you should only use OSS. It means use CSS if the OSS is crappy and improve the OSS in the mean time.
Ok I will provide one example of the constricting nature of the trademark policy: Localization, what other popular OSS group have had localization project turned into a community editions?
What other popular OSS group has translations that aren’t just translations? A straight translation is one thing, changing the items that can be changed for searchplugins etc goes well beyond a straight localization project.
Out of curiosity, how do non-programmers affect OSS in a way that they do not affect CSS?
Out of curiosity, how do non-programmers affect OSS in a way that they do not affect CSS?
There are a variety of ways in which somebody can contribute to an open source project without having any skills in programming. Unlike with the closed source software community, you can have direct communication with the developers, file bugs on the products directly (and see them tracked), be involved with bug triage, help write documentation, create translations, and help with localization projects.
As an example, if I find I bug in Mozilla, I can go to BMO and report it as well as watch it go through the process of being triaged and then hopefully fixed. If I find a bug in IE I have no real recourse. I can try calling tech support, or emailing Microsoft, but I have no access to their bug tracker, I don’t have any direct way to report a bug, etc.
I suppose you could make the argument that you can do most of these things through community-led efforts outside the sphere of direct interaction with the organization doing development, which would then allow you to report bugs, help with docs, etc. for closed source software. However, I think the ability to do these things in a more direct fashion with the involvement of the developing organization is much more productive and lends to a better relationship between the users and the developers.
If this comment didn’t make any sense, blame my lack of sleep right now.
Ok but all the direct interaction is how the OSS community affects non-programmers, not how non-programmers affect OSS. In the end, both communities care about attracting users, both communities have channels for users to make suggestions and report bugs, and both communities only fix what they want to fix.
Mmm… Good post
Will watch your blog
bad credit loans…
craggy monsters bastes saddled …