In response to Kaushik

Little did I expect my post on "4/6/2004 | 01:22 hrs" would have raked up so much response on the Internet, especially from the people I've quoted in that post. I'd like to make some clarifications regarding that.

> Joe Steeve, a good friend of mine (and a vociferous campaigner for
> open source software)"

By the way., I dont campaign for Open Source. I talk only about Free Software. . Oov., is there a difference.?? Yeah.. a pretty big one., and that difference matters to me.

> The talk about .Net on LUG meetings wasn't uncalled-for. In fact
> I don’t understand why he writes this after letting me do this session
> on mono for the Linux user group.

Definitely, your talk on ILUG-Madurai was called-for (I'm the one who accepted your offer of talk). The talk was supposed to be on Dot NET., the technical front. Your talk was not purely in the technical front alone. It accompanied comments such as "Micro$oft if for OpenSource", "Rotor is the proof that Micro$oft has interest in Open Source", etc.. which were _definitely_ uncalled for. (The minutes of the meet dosent cover these comments).

> Probably my having mentioned Microsoft has an open source
> offering in Rotor, has sparked off this controversy.

Hmm.. Micro$oft has released Rotor under something called "Microsoft's Shared Source License", which is a non-free license. That is., the software is not Free Software. The www.gnu.org has listed that license there just to show people which license makes a software as a Free Software.

> I never thought “open source“ would only mean GPL to a linux advocate.

I'm not a *linux* advocate. I support Free Software and that dosent mean I'm a "linux advocate". Ok., If a software comes under GNU GPL, it is specifically called Free Software and more generally called Open Source Software. But Rotor is neither "Free Software" nor "Open Source Software". I've explained already how the M$'s SSL explicitly makes Rotor a non-free software. Please take time to read the definiton of "Open Source", here. The M$ SSL dosent comply with this either. Hence it is not a "Open Source" compliant license either. So Rotor is _not_ "Open Source"., and definitely not "Free Software". Then what category does this software come under?

And, In my post, I've clearly titled it as the "anomalies in the term OpenSource". The post was directed towards the advantage taken by M$ in using those anomalies., by using the Student Abassadors to talk for it. When these Evangelists er., ambassadors, talk to students/novices who dont know these differences, they make them fall unknowingly into the mess. It is not my concern whether these Ambassadors do this knowingly or unknowingly. This is exactly what I meant by "..They basically work as the "honeypots" to lure the bees to eternal slavery...".

And I think, I made no mistake in any of my words.. :)


Post a Comment

<< Home