Open Source Weblog

I'm through my evil empire phase and I see that Castle Gates has accomplished
a remarkable feat...i.e. enabling millions with the tools to tap into a resource of incalculable proportions.
And to extend the religion thread it's
somewhat "Katolic" or universal in its
scope. The catch is that there is a loss of computing discourse due to a reduction of vocabulary further hindered by default paradigms withn windows. Is it possible to draw the majority away from the deluge of infotainment and distractions of celebrity/tinseltown extensions of highschool favorites?

It's really amazing how people easily label the Free and Open Source movement of being dogmatic and such but these people also fail to see the other side of the coin.

Religion is what you believe and what you ultimately believe becomes your practice. It is such belief that creates an ecology and whenever it is challenge it has no other choice but to protect and show the reason for it's existence.

Close Source software is also a religion. A belief that the only way you can create an ecosystem is by charging on software. And we have people who advocate the Religion of Intellectual Property Rights.

Open Source is a religion that believes in harmonizing Business and Freedom. That one can do business without restricting one's freedom.

The FOSS community, I believe, understand that it has to work with current Patent and whatever the law requires. That is why it is challenging the claim made by Microsoft of explicitly stating the infringement linux made and the FOSS developers will be happy to find a workaround of the problem. But, instead, novell made an agreement of microsoft not to sue it's Linux customer. So, this agreement centers around Linux and not within their technical agreement. Either Novell and Microsoft need to make it clear by laying this patent cards or rephrase it the wording of the agreement to take out the word Linux.

Another point is how Novell and Microsoft treats an Open Source Developer. For them, anyone contributing code to those projects can only be used for personal means and not allowed to be distributable. Hence, Novell willingly contributed in undermining the community.

Thirdly, What are to happen on the improvements of the FOSS projects under the agreement? What are the extent of the Patent Claim of Microsoft to any module being changed to suit the modules they've made for Interoperability between FOSS apps and Microsoft?

If you exchange your FREEDOM for a price, it is your Choice. But do not force the FOSS community to have the same choice as yours.

I agree the proprietary world can be just as dogmatic (as I stated) and I agree with many of the points you make about the patent deal (see here: http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2007/02/can_someone_exp.html). The point I was making is that it's probably easier if everyone stops thinking about software in religious terms. I realise that's pretty unlikely to happen, however

Its very hard not to look at Microsoft's track record and not get upset about the way they operate. It has nothing to do with Religion -- its just good common sense. Wether your in tune with FOSS or Open Source, or if your just a fan of MAC, Microsoft is the "bad guy" because their actions have proven them to be so. They continue to do things in the manner they always have (ie. the Novell deal) and they show every indication that they fully intend to subvert the Open Source world. I would imagine this is so because a great many Open Source apps and Distro's are far superior to any other proprietary equivelant and that is a direct threat to thier monopoly over the Desktop world... God forbid that BillyBob should find out that there is a free and much better alternative to his $400.00 Vista!

Here's another side to the coin. Wether you view the Open Source community with disdain or not, wether you view that community as being Religious or not, they represent the ONLY real effort at non proprietary software inroads. Thier philosophy is simple, yet sensible, and if they fail, thier innovations and contributions fail with it. This is not just a bunch of guys sitting around a campfire singing "kumbaya", rather, its a host of people working hard and contributing countless hours to making improvements and fixing bugs and answering forum/IRC questions, and the list goes on. So there is a massive collaboration of effort put into it -- all on a voluntary basis! Do you really think that the people who put so much work into a project like this would not want to take ownership and pride over it?

"Do you really think that the people who put so much work into a project like this would not want to take ownership and pride over it?"

No, and I don't think I ever suggested that they shouldn't, just as I don't think there is any suggestion that I - or anyone - should view the open source community with disdain.

Open source is not about religion and its not about dogma. Instead, it is a pragmatic choice for developers and users alike. Often in my development the following are key points in my decision making process:

1) How much does it cost? (less = better)
2) How steep is the learning curve? (shallow/short = better)
3) How does it compare to something I might currently be using? (simpler often = better)
4) Is it open (can be modified) and if so, what is the nature of its licensing?
5) Is it portable?
6) How well does it fit in with other tools/libraries I am using?

To me these are rational points of consideration. Of far lower consequence is something that almost everyone I know would regard as the primary question - How popular is it? This measure is indeed an article of religion for which I have little to no use.

Precisely. There are aspects of open source that will make it a better choice in certain situations, but it is not better by default just because it is open source

"Cancer", and "Viral" were previous Microsoft FUD catchphrases. "Religion" is the latest one. You can spot a Microsoft paid shill by the catchphrases he/she uses.

If someone allows others to use their code free of charge, why is that religion?

If someone attaches conditions to the use of that code - like:
"it can only be distributed if patents can be licensed on the same basis (free of charge) unless the distributor wants to negotiate a commercial license for the code",
then why is that religious?

If someone objects to their code being used outside the terms of their license, than why is that religious?

If a customer or end user chooses open source software, why is that religious?

If a customer or end user is angered by the control a monopoly supplier and OEM cartels has over his/her business, and the extortionate prices/forced upgrade/security problems/instablility he/she is forced to endure, why is that religion?

No, the open source community and those who use it are only religious zealots in the eyes of a certain crazed monopoly and it's shills.

That's the first time I have ever been called a Microsoft paid shill. Thanks very much. If you actually bothered to read the post you might have realized that I was arguing that open source should NOT be considered religion.

It's this sort of knee-jerk reaction to constructive criticism that I was arguing open source needs to move away from:

Don't like someone's point of view? Call them a shill and then go and stick your head back in the sand, or somewhere else equally sunlight-free...

I didn't call you a shill, I said the catch phrase "religious" used with regard to the Linux and open source community is being spread by Microsoft shills.

I hope that you are not saying that suggesting that Microsoft pays shills and bloggers to promote this is blasphemous, because it is perfectly true.

Apologies then. I misunderstood. It's true such shills do exist, but then not everyone who uses the phrase "religious" with regards to open source is a shill. Case in point.

I'm not going to comment on the use of the word "blasphemous" in this context...