2009
10.12
10.12
This presentation explains the three camps that have existed in the past (free software, open source software, and proprietary software). Freedomware is a relatively new concept that combines the best of both free and open source software worlds under one roof.
you idea is just semantics… it is open source under a different name…. unless i missed something in the presentation…
the communism argument was and is only micosoft propaganda/FUD.. i have not heard anyone else ever mention it..
there is business already arounf FLOSS and or OSS look at redhat , cononical.. and that is why you pay support on FLOSS and OSS.. to guarantee fixes… and improvements..
all you want is to remove idealogy.. which brings me back to my first statement in which ,… your back to opensouce…
Taking a look
@Petem: Take a closer look. It’s what “Open Source” emphasizes that makes it different from freedomware. A great example of an “open source” project would be DotNetNuke. The source code is available, people are free to modify it and redistribute it, and the authors have given up any type of ownership whatsoever. However, there is a problem. The project in question utilizes Microsoft’s .NET framework, which is proprietary, so that wouldn’t make it freedomware. Anything that relies on proprietary software and/or libraries to function at all is not freedomware, because it’s locked down by said software/library.
One thing missing from this presentation is “What is Freedomware?” You sketch out your definitions for free software, open source software, and proprietary software, but really need to define what freedomware is, and how it is different. Would GPLv2 software be freedomware? GPLv3? BSD licensed software? MIT licenced software? Apache licensed? Any of the OSI licenses? Can Freedomware software be sold? How does Freedomware encourage businesses to fix bugs or create custom changes over and above what currently exists?
I guess the “Freedomware” name also bugs me a bit, because it reminds me of things like the US Congress trying to rename French Fries to Freedom Fries because France wouldn’t support the war in Iraq. There are already a ton of entities trying to brand things “Freedom-this” and “Freedom-that” in order to try and associate some sort of patriotic connotation to the renamed object, and at this point any term “Freedom” + some-other-word just feels like thinly-veiled propaganda to me.
And anyone who calls FLOSS software “communism” can be ignored because they obviously don’t know what “communism” actually means, and they won’t be swayed by any sort of logical argument anyways.
I find your presentation a bit weak. You do not really show the benefits of FOSS. more homework is needed.
Besides that the presentation could look nicer with a bit more engagement. Animations, Font choices etc. The way it is yo9u could just have written a blog entry. At least I would not have had to click so many times.
Why do I say this? Simple because I think you can do better ant thus make a greater contribution to FOSS.
@mjung: Like the first slide said, you may make modifications so long as I am informed. This material is meant for other people to use. Besides, the title of the presentation asks: “Why Freedomware?” It is explaining why the term was chosen instead of just calling it FOSS or in some circles FLOSS.
@Michael: Don’t worry. It’s not meant to be an “American only” thing. Like you, I found the phrase “freedom fries” to be a bit goofy as well. I thought I already defined freedomware (hint: it has the same four essential freedoms that “free software” has), but in hindsight, not everybody is going to watch a video online or read the manifesto at the beginning of this site. I’m working on another presentation that will best explain it. Thanks for pointing it out. Also, in regards to the communism argument, that was actually a reference to a film called Revolution OS, in which an individual from Russia, who had apparently lived through the last part of the cold war, saw “Free Software” just like they did communism (they didn’t understand how people would actually be willing to volunteer on software projects with or without monetary compensation).
The “Freedomware Manifesto” is only available from “http://freedomwareproject.org” under the “Spread the Manifesto” link. Most people will enter your site through links, or wind up at “http://freedomwareproject.org/enter/” and never see that document. Your initial video is a bit rambling, and doesn’t clearly spell out the definition of Freedomware.
You are also confusing copyright and patents. Sharing of code or software an individual or group has written is controlled by copyright; this is good. Implementing (broad) ideas regardless of whether you’ve seen the code or not is controlled by patents, and this is considered bad by most developers. You also freely mix in DRM as a problem, without ever mentioning it by name. You mention the Four Freedoms, and then the next paragraph rail on about “security vendors”. Your Manifesto rant is all over the place adn attacking the evils of many different (sometimes unrelated) targets, rather than being focused.
You also need to check the exactness of your language in the manifesto. “Courts in the United States ruled that citizens were not allowed to watch a DVD on a computer that used the Linux kernel.” Did they rule that you can’t watch DVDs on a Linux kernel, or that you can only watch it through software that has properly licensed and paid the fees for the CSS encription algorithm (regardless of what kernel it is run on)?
The Manifesto also requires a lot of contextual knowledge to be understood (who are Ballmer, Levy, helios, DVD Jon, Gosper, Greenblatt, Wozniack, etc.) Your last paragraph of the Manifesto also reads as “those guys in the 50’s didn’t start a revolution… I’m starting the revolution!” which is a bit presumptuous.
I have sympathies for what you are attempting to do with this site/movement. But you really need to work on delivering a clearer and more focused message (and better credit those whose existing messages you are building on).
(And if the communism argument is coming from one person interviewed in a movie which was not widely seen, and who probably grew up under a communistic regime and likely sees lots of things through that filter, I don’t think that argument is really severe enough to be a main concern of a movement presumably directed mostly at the non-eastern-bloc countries.)
@Michael I’m think Thomas will appreciate your constructive criticism. As this matures I’m sure there will be more structure and coherence just bear in mind that he is only one man and he has taken on quite a big undertaking.
I will do what I can to help but with the very little time I have it’s limited to spreading the word and posting comments on relevant articles.