Re: [DotGNU]Re: "Open source" is not what we do here

[Seth Johnson]

This is not about parentage or who wounded whom.  It's about
disciplined organizing.  "Open source" is a term that has
the ability to disrupt the game plan.  At worst, it can be
used by disingenuous "political cops" who may actively seek
to disrupt the coherence of the movement's focus -- but *of
course* not necessarily.

Richard understands what's necessary, and has stayed the
course for perhaps twenty-odd years.  Under his leadership
he has evaded all tendencies that might tend to coopt the
movement.  "Open sourcers" by whatever rationale may be
well-intentioned, but we have to overdetermine on the fact
that because of the nature of what we have to work against,
that term is unreliable.  The term "free software" is a key
protocol that keeps things on the right keel.

Who cares who gets to name the movement in the end?  If we
win, we win.  That's what it's about.  That's ALL it's
about.  So whatever you do your own initiative, remember
that the FSF defines its initiatives in certain ways, for
enormously important reasons.

Seth Johnson

Tony Stanco wrote:
> 
> I don't use the term to direct people's attention to Open Source. Their
> attention is already there. I use that pre-existing attention to get my
> message across about using GPL software.
> 
> In my opinion, changing the development paradigm needs to be the main goal,
> anyway. Unless the paradigm is changed, both names are irrelevant. Once the
> GPL is the paradigm, we can worry about the name. But once the GPL is the
> paradigm, the naming will naturally fall to you. That's because you are the
> author of the GPL, and Eben and the FSF are the enforcers. No one will have
> more legitimacy or authority.

-- 

[CC] Counter-copyright:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html