freedomware

7.18: web,news.adds/openware/
osi's open source definition:
. Stallman likes to call GPL'd wares, free sofware,
but the natural contraction of that is freeware,
and that is notoriously not GPL;
it's usually just a chance to get malware .
. I think we should call GPL'd wares
evolverware, or freedomware .
. in any case, you can't call it openware;
because,

"( the obvious meaning for
the expression “open source software”
—and the one most people seem to think it means —
is “You can look at the source code.”
That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition,
much weaker also than the
official definition of open source.
It includes many programs that are
neither [freedom-supporting] nor open source.).

I think it's important that we point out
that it's important to promote freedomware,
and to distinguish it from openware;
but we need to promote the use of vmware too,
so that we can use both freedomware
and malwares like drm-protected music .
. the most important freedomwares
are not only the os and compiler,
but also the hypervisor .
. if gnu ever gets around to an os,
it should be something like Qubes
only perhaps with the smaller okL4
instead of xen, if that is possible .

osi's open source definition:
. it's a lot like the gpl; so,
what's the diff?

Stallman`Why Open Source
misses the point of Free Software
...

The official definition of “open source software”
(which is published by the Open Source Initiative)
was derived indirectly from our criteria
for [freedomware] . It is not the same;
it is a little looser in some respects,
so the open source people have accepted a few licenses
that we consider unacceptably restrictive.
Also, they judge solely by the license of the source code,
whereas our criterion also considers
whether a device will let you
run your modified version of the program.
. their definition mostly agrees with our definition;
Nonetheless, there are situations where
these fundamentally different views
lead to very different actions.

The idea of open source is that
allowing users to change and redistribute the software
will make it more powerful and reliable.
But this is not guaranteed.
Developers of proprietary software
are not necessarily incompetent.
Sometimes they produce a program that
is powerful and reliable,
even though it does not respect the users' freedom.
[freedomware] activists and open source enthusiasts
will react very differently to that.
A pure open source enthusiast,
one that is not at all influenced by
the ideals of free software,
will say, “I am surprised you were able to
make the program work so well without
using our development model, but you did.
How can I get a copy?”
This attitude will reward schemes that
take away our freedom, leading to its loss.
 For the [freedomware] movement,
nonfree software is a social problem,
and the solution is to
stop using it, and move to free software.

Under pressure from the movie and record companies,
software for individuals to use
is increasingly designed specifically to restrict them.
This malicious feature is known as
Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)
(see DefectiveByDesign.org)
and is the antithesis [of freedomware] ...
And not just in spirit:
since the goal of DRM is to trample your freedom,
DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible, or even illegal
for you to change the software that implements the DRM.

Yet some open source supporters have proposed
“open source DRM” software.
Their idea is that, by publishing the source code
and by allowing others to change it,
they will produce more reliable software
for restricting users like you.
The software would then be delivered to you
in devices that do not allow you to change it.

This software might be open source
and use the open source development model,
but it won't be [freedomware] since it won't respect
the freedom of the users that actually run it.
If the open source development model
succeeds in making this software
more powerful and reliable for restricting you,
that will make it even worse.

. software can be said to serve its users
only if it respects their freedom.
What if the software is designed to put chains on its users?
Then powerfulness means the chains are more constricting,
and reliability that they are harder to remove.
Malicious features, such as spying on the users,
restricting the users, back doors, and imposed upgrades
are common in proprietary software,
and some open source supporters
want to implement this same malware
in open source programs.

Nearly all GNU/Linux distributions
add proprietary packages to the basic free system,
and they invite users to consider this
an advantage rather than a flaw.

the philosopher of the Free Software movement:

“Open source is a development methodology;
free software is a social movement,”
Stallman says in his book
Free Software Free Society:
Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman.
“We are not against the open source movement,
but we (Free Software movement members)
don’t want to be lumped in with them.”
Open source-ers like Bruce Perens,
the author of the movement’s official definition,
believe that free and proprietary software can co-exist.
Perens, the author of the Open Source Definition,
called Stallman a great philosopher
but called his ideas “utopian”
and attributed them to Stallman’s
lack of success in the business world.

[7.19:
. actually, Stallman's ideas can be attributed to
Traditional Retail's lack of success:
. he had a printer and found a bug in its driver,
but the company didn't want to fix it because
bugs are what get you to buy the next model .
]
Richard Stallman earned a BA in physics
from Harvard University in 1974.
. accolades for his contributions include:
1990 ACM's Grace Hopper award
(extensible editor EMACS (Editing Macros))
1998 Electronic Frontier Foundation's Pioneer Award
(his 1984 GNU Project became significantly usable
when combined with the Linux kernel ); [7.19:
1999 Yuri Rubinsky Memorial Award.
(development of the Internet infrastructure;
he warned about software patents on basic ideas);
2001 Takeda Techno-Entrepreneurial Achievements
for Social/Economic Well-Being Award
(origination and advancement of
open development models for system software
- open architecture, free software
and open source software.)
... not to mention numerous honorary
doctorates and professorships .]

Perens, author of the Open Source Definition:

is author of the Open Source Definition
and co-founder of the Open Source Initiative.
. he's been a computer graphics expert,
with 12 years at Pixar Animation Studios.
. Perens sees 3 software Paradigms:
# Traditional Retail
# Contract / In-House Development,
# open source. [7.19:
. the Traditional Retail Model is appropriate when
the software is automating professional services;
eg, tax filing software is acting as legal consultant,
rather than a computer resource manager .
. the software itself is rather trivial;
what you are paying for is expertise .][7.18:
. this software could still be freedomware
while the business rules were kept closed
in a pay-to-use database; ][7.19:
in fact, this software is all freedomware now;
it uses your firefox or chrome browser
to interact with an online service .]
. The Contract / In-House Development Model
gets its money from using software
rather than selling it;
and, using secret software
gives them a competitive advantage . [7.19:
. that doesn't mean it can't use freedomware:
the spirit of Stallman's GPL is that
if you put software on any of my devices,
you have to give me the source code,
and allow me to change the software on my devices;
so, an online service can
use freedomware on its own servers
without giving you the code;
therefore, it can use GPLware
and still keep its in-house software a secret .]
Open source’s primary advantage,
is creating non-differentiating software [7.19:
that is producible by non-experts .]
By distributing these types of programs as open source
it is possible to share the cost and risk
of development among many parties.
. anyone who is interested in the software
can participate in enhancing it,
sharing the overhead of software development
and saving costs all around.

7.18: co.adds/openware/GPL owes legitimacy to OSI?:
Summary:

. OSI, an important, but long quiet,
open-source organization
is seeking to revitalize itself with a new
membership program.
By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
for Linux and Open Source | July 18, 2012
-- Updated 17:31 GMT (10:31 PDT)
Portland, OR:
There was a time that everyone in the
Linux and open-source world
knew about the Open Source Initiative (OSI).
It was, and still is, the group which manages
the Open Source Definition.
This is the core open-source defining document
for developers, governments, and businesses.
All the other open-source licensees
— Apache, BSD, GPL —
all[owe] some of their legitimately[legitimacy]
to  the OSI.
In recent years, though, the OSI has laid fallow.
Now, it wants to change that and once more become
a vital part of the open-source community.

me:
GPL owes legitimacy to OSI?
. the honourable Richard Stallman, founder of GPL,
has philosophical differences with OSI,
so I think you owe us an explanation
after asserting that
"All the other open-source licensees
—Apache, BSD, GPL—all[owe?]
some of their legitimately[legitimacy?]
to  the OSI."
. OSI is "the core open-source defining document
for developers, governments, and businesses" ?
. what does that have to do with GPL's legitimacy?!
. what legitimizes a legal document
is enforceability, and attractiveness;
do you know how large the GPL base is?