[OT] What is Open Source? (was Re: ANN: Twisted 0.16.0...)

[Huaiyu Zhu]

Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
>>>>>> "Laura" == Laura Creighton <lac at strakt.com> writes:
>>     Laura> People here seem to be thinking that the GPL is there to
>>     Laura> protect creators rights to their software.
>> 
>> I'm pretty sure that that is what rms has in mind, as long as both
>> "creators" and "software" are inclusive collective nouns.
[snip]
>
>But it didn't.  I don't see how the GPL is about consumer protection.
[snip]
>I've read them.  I understand the concept.
>
>My mother doesn't.  She will never notice how much software has been

One problem with your postings in this thread is that you are constantly
arguing in three lines without clear distinction: what is the intent of GPL,
what you think it would achieve, and what is the impression left on the
unwashed mass.

If you stick to RMS's intent, you'll see that it is indeed about consumer
protection from the very beginning.  There are plenty of evidence all over
the net, from GNU, FSF and RMS writings, and also summarized by several
posters here.

Whether we agree this is its actual effect is a different issue.  

Whether it is something known to the mass media is yet another issue.

Not distinguishing these issues makes your posts sound rhetorical.  Not that
rhetorics are not useful.  They may be the only valid tool in certain
situations, esp for advocacy - see Alex's thought-provoking analysis.  

However, injecting rhetorics into discussions that are intended to be
technical by most discussants does often produce irritating effects.  

BTW, My impression on the distinction between OSI/FSF is just about the
opposite of yours: I think OSI is arguing from the producer line, while FSF
is from the consumer line.  But I do not intend to argue this point here,
but rather to use it as a data point to show that you cannot just assume
that your view is *obviously* correct.

Huaiyu