Comments on: The Darker Side of Open Source? http://wayofthegeek.org/2007/12/crazy-programmers-make-the-internet-fun/ Your One Stop Geek Shop Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:19:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Corvus http://wayofthegeek.org/2007/12/crazy-programmers-make-the-internet-fun/#comment-3994 Corvus Sun, 30 Dec 2007 07:17:16 +0000 http://wayofthegeek.org/2007/12/crazy-programmers-make-the-internet-fun/#comment-3994 Not the first time, you didn't. You provided one source and a bunch of "I said so". Next time provide backup the first time instead of hollering about FUD. Not the first time, you didn’t. You provided one source and a bunch of “I said so”. Next time provide backup the first time instead of hollering about FUD.

]]> By: antifud http://wayofthegeek.org/2007/12/crazy-programmers-make-the-internet-fun/#comment-3991 antifud Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:59:54 +0000 http://wayofthegeek.org/2007/12/crazy-programmers-make-the-internet-fun/#comment-3991 Might I also remind that Debian considers GFDL with invariant sections "non-free" (and originally all of GFDL, but they had to yield). Also compare Valkonen complaining how authors are reduced to "workhorses for the distributions" with Debian complaining how they're being reduced to exactly that for Ubuntu, who would not report changes back to Debian -- something which distributions including Debian do not tend to extend back to upstream authors. Might I also remind that Debian considers GFDL with invariant sections “non-free” (and originally all of GFDL, but they had to yield).

Also compare Valkonen complaining how authors are reduced to “workhorses for the distributions” with Debian complaining how they’re being reduced to exactly that for Ubuntu, who would not report changes back to Debian — something which distributions including Debian do not tend to extend back to upstream authors.

]]> By: antifud http://wayofthegeek.org/2007/12/crazy-programmers-make-the-internet-fun/#comment-3988 antifud Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:47:20 +0000 http://wayofthegeek.org/2007/12/crazy-programmers-make-the-internet-fun/#comment-3988 License change was threatened when Debian was intending to include a broken development snapshot of Ion in Etch http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/ion-general/2007-March/000998.html . But Debian eventually yielded, and the license was only changed after Valkonen became pissed off with the behaviour of Arch https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/ion-general/2007-April/001169.html As for other ill-informed points, you write "accused the Free Software Foundation of being little better than Microsoft in terms of wanting absolute control over every bite of code under their auspices", when in actuality "the FSF is actually among the saner end of the FOSS movement, what with GFDL including invariant sections, and GPLv3 containing provisions for requiring modified versions to be renamed or so. The real zealots are centered around the distros, and only consider those licenses "free" that give distros the most power at the expense of authors" http://www.mail-archive.com/ion-general@lists.berlios.de/msg02456.html as well as "this brings opportunity for the high priests of the movement – <em>who may not be associated at all with the original propagators of the ideas that the movement claims to serve</em> – to exploit this blind following/faith towards their own ends" http://iki.fi/tuomov/b/archives/2007/12/22/T17_06_48/ . Also "that the FLOSS development model was fundamentally broken (since it took away the basic right of the original author to have the final say over his own code)" fuses two somewhat disconnected arguments (development model, licenses) into a new one. License change was threatened when Debian was intending to include a broken development snapshot of Ion in Etch http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/ion-general/2007-March/000998.html . But Debian eventually yielded, and the license was only changed after Valkonen became pissed off with the behaviour of Arch https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/ion-general/2007-April/001169.html

As for other ill-informed points, you write “accused the Free Software Foundation of being little better than Microsoft in terms of wanting absolute control over every bite of code under their auspices”, when in actuality “the FSF is actually among the saner end of the FOSS movement, what with GFDL including invariant sections, and GPLv3 containing provisions for requiring modified versions to be renamed or so. The real zealots are centered around the distros, and only consider those licenses “free” that give distros the most power at the expense of authors” http://www.mail-archive.com/ion-general@lists.berlios.de/msg02456.html as well as “this brings opportunity for the high priests of the movement – who may not be associated at all with the original propagators of the ideas that the movement claims to serve – to exploit this blind following/faith towards their own ends” http://iki.fi/tuomov/b/archives/2007/12/22/T17_06_48/ .

Also “that the FLOSS development model was fundamentally broken (since it took away the basic right of the original author to have the final say over his own code)” fuses two somewhat disconnected arguments (development model, licenses) into a new one.

]]> By: Devin de Gruyl http://wayofthegeek.org/2007/12/crazy-programmers-make-the-internet-fun/#comment-3987 Devin de Gruyl Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:46:55 +0000 http://wayofthegeek.org/2007/12/crazy-programmers-make-the-internet-fun/#comment-3987 One more thing: I'm no fan of RMS either, for precisely the same reason - like Valkonen, he's a bit too extreme in his views for my taste, even though I agree with him in principle. A generally antagonistic attitude on his part to anyone who doesn't share his viewpoints doesn't help either. One more thing: I’m no fan of RMS either, for precisely the same reason - like Valkonen, he’s a bit too extreme in his views for my taste, even though I agree with him in principle. A generally antagonistic attitude on his part to anyone who doesn’t share his viewpoints doesn’t help either.

]]> By: Devin de Gruyl http://wayofthegeek.org/2007/12/crazy-programmers-make-the-internet-fun/#comment-3986 Devin de Gruyl Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:40:26 +0000 http://wayofthegeek.org/2007/12/crazy-programmers-make-the-internet-fun/#comment-3986 I'll consider myself duly corrected on the car point, but will in my defense point out that the verbiage I used in my original statement ("seems to," "appears") allowed for the possibility I <i>was</i> misinterpreting Valkonen's stance on that issue. Ditto for the rationale behind the patch clause, which I actually thought at first I had covered (he's cool with it, he just doesn't want the patched packages called "Ion" as that would imply the patched package was official). As far as the Arch blowup, I think (key word: "think") <i>you</i> might be slightly confused; my notes show that it was actually <i>Debian</i> that caused the change in license, for the reasons you describe. The original post to the tur-users (Arch) mailing list by Tuomo was made <i>after</i> the changes to the license were made... or at least, that's the info I have. If my info's wrong, then I'll again consider myself corrected on that point. One thing I <i>won't</i> be apologizing for is my opinion, which last I checked I was entitled to. Just to clarify it: I give Valkonen full marks for being a talented coder, as well as an unconventional thinker with some unique and valid ideas in the realm of computer-interface design. OTOH, his attitude of late has smacked of "I'm taking my ball and going home," which never sets well with me <i>and</i> does his image absolutely no favors. Brilliant programmer he may be, but no one will ever accuse him of being a "people person"; that's his right, of course, but it's not something that's going to endear the guy to me personally. Hopefully that clears it up a little bit, at least enough so that you don't write <i>me</i> off... I’ll consider myself duly corrected on the car point, but will in my defense point out that the verbiage I used in my original statement (”seems to,” “appears”) allowed for the possibility I was misinterpreting Valkonen’s stance on that issue. Ditto for the rationale behind the patch clause, which I actually thought at first I had covered (he’s cool with it, he just doesn’t want the patched packages called “Ion” as that would imply the patched package was official).

As far as the Arch blowup, I think (key word: “think”) you might be slightly confused; my notes show that it was actually Debian that caused the change in license, for the reasons you describe. The original post to the tur-users (Arch) mailing list by Tuomo was made after the changes to the license were made… or at least, that’s the info I have. If my info’s wrong, then I’ll again consider myself corrected on that point.

One thing I won’t be apologizing for is my opinion, which last I checked I was entitled to. Just to clarify it: I give Valkonen full marks for being a talented coder, as well as an unconventional thinker with some unique and valid ideas in the realm of computer-interface design. OTOH, his attitude of late has smacked of “I’m taking my ball and going home,” which never sets well with me and does his image absolutely no favors. Brilliant programmer he may be, but no one will ever accuse him of being a “people person”; that’s his right, of course, but it’s not something that’s going to endear the guy to me personally.

Hopefully that clears it up a little bit, at least enough so that you don’t write me off…

]]>