From: Chuck Murcko (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue May 08 2001 - 08:39:12 PDT
On Saturday, May 5, 2001, at 07:47 PM, Karl Anderson wrote:
> Chuck Murcko <email@example.com> writes:
>>> My personal emotional reaction was revulsion at Eric Raymond's
>>> today of the GPL and Stallman as unrepresentative of 'the Open Source
>>> movement.' I agree. Open Source has nothing to do with Stallman's
>>> idealism. It's sort of like a political party that wants to distance
>>> from the idealism that gave it it's initial cachet, and I think it
>>> every bit of the credibility that that implies.
>> Feh. Why is it that everyone treats OS like it has none of the
>> defects that corps have? Or any of the brains or pragmatism in a
>> business sense?
> Why do people talk about OS like it's a political party? Or any type
> of group organized enough that one subgroup can represent another?
Because some notable clumping has happened, like the ASF. Because the
perception (and the way the world is operating) is that OS has
representatives, no matter how you would like to look at it. Witness ASF
on the JCP EC. (Java Community Process Executive Committee)
Sun was looking for a "trophy" OS member to nod yes. What they got was a
little bit different. 8^)
Think of it as self organizing animal(s). Out of the OS protoplasm rise
clumps of organization. It's silly to deny they can't speak for anybody,
just as it's silly to think they speak for everybody.
Are we going to talk about something here other than metaphysical bank
shots and philosophical boundary conditions? 8^) There's an evolving
relationship between OS (open source and other truly free software, that
is, in case you're about to veer) and corps. Therefore there are points
of intersection. Some of these are perceived as "representative". Bruce
Perens and Linux Capital Group are one of these. So is ASF and
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 08 2001 - 08:49:12 PDT