On Monday, 8. June 2009 05:44:58 Ian Clarke wrote:
> > And no matter how nice these people are, do you trust their strengths of
> > principles not to stab our back when they get threatened, if their
> > principles aren't even strong enough to make their project free software?
>
> What if it isn't that their principles aren't strong, perhaps they
> simply don't agree with your principles?
That's a possibility, and maybe I'm too fixed on free software at times. Not
maybe. I am too fixed at it at times - at least when you ask some of my
friends.
The reason why I'm very wary of using nonfree software for the bugtracker of
freenet is that this could create a lock-in, and that lock-in is only true as
long as lighthouse doesn't provide a simple way to export the data into a
format usable for other bugtrackers.
Should they provide that export option, then they don't create a lock-in: It's
always possible to just switch on if something bad should happen (and we could
periodically export to have a clean backup). But I didn't find anything about
that on their website.
> I run a company that produces non-open source software. I do-so
> because its the only way for the company to be financially viable, if
> my business plan was to open source the software then the software
> simply wouldn't exist, because it wouldn't be financially viable to
> create it. Would the world be a better place without the software
> I've created, even if that software isn't open source? I don't think
> so.
You shouldn't, else you'd have the wrong job :)
But freenet lives as free project on donations, so it doesn't need to become
dependent on unfree software to be viable. On the contrary. I don't know how
many of the donors think like me and only donate to free projects.
> I suggest you re-read the Freenet mission statement, here it is for
> your convenience - note that it says nothing that would limit us to
> use of open source software:
>
> "The specific purpose of this corporation is to assist in developing
> and disseminating technological solutions to further the open and
> democratic distribution of information over the Internet or its
> successor electronic communication networks or organizations. It is
> also the purpose of this organization to guarantee consenting
> individuals the free, unmediated, and unimpeded reception and
> impartation of all intellectual, scientific, literary, social,
> artistic, creative, human rights, and cultural expressions, opinions
> and ideas without interference or limitation by or service to state,
> private, or special interests. It is also the purpose of this
> organization to educate the world community and be an advocate of
> these purposes."
As more and more education organizations move on towards open access, it
becomes more and more visible that to archieve the goal of truly free
communication, free/open licenses are a prerequisite.
And if this licensing is done consequentially, it leads to free software using
open standards.
Every other kind of software creates an imbalance of power: Those who can
change the software (or learn to do so) and those who can't, regardless of
their ability. More exactly: Unfree software arbitrarily gives some people
power over the lives of other people. And when unfree software is necessary
for some kinds of communication, the users who depend on this communication
are at the mercy of the ones who created the software.
We don't talk about a better frontend to a bugtracking system, but about the
whole system which would also hold the data.
Best wishes,
Arne
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
- singing a part of the history of free software -
http://infinite-hands.draketo.de
