It's not about open source, it's about open standards

[mostwanted]

Personally, I don't do any advocasy. In shorter terms: I veni, vidi, [latin word for failed], but part of that is because I don't see any compelling reason for converting people to open source. Whatever software they use now, they can keep using, I really don't care at all. Honestly.

What I do care about is being able to exchange files with them and to be able to play files off the web without any hassles. I'm not saying Ubuntu should end their policies concerning restricted software, I'm saying the world itself should change. I also think businesses should care more about not being locked in by a specific vendor because of proprietary formats (which they have a tendency to all the ******* time those dumb ****s - one can only pity them).

So my advice is to advocate open standards and then leave the software licenses alone. Nobody, except us software hippies cares about or will even have the patience to learn about open source / free software, but there's a chance they'll care about open standards ("I can use my X file in program Y? Cool!") and even the most confessed capitalist who say that "open source is not a viable business form" will have to acknowledge that open standards only promote healthy competition.

[BoyOfDestiny]

I agree open standards are very very important. However, I don't think you should just say "open source". There are over 150 licenses that fall under that. The idea behind them varies. It might be to retain some control (i.e. the CDDL with Open Solaris), or a license that just wants attribution and doesn't care if their work gets closed (BSD), or a license that does it's best to make sure the community is not a doormat (GPL).

I seriously recommend this speech. I'm a fan of GNU and free software, and reading through this really cleared up a lot of questions I had.

http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt

Here is a summary for the impatient:
http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt

EDIT: Well you've edited your post a little bit, I will too :) Open standards have obvious benefits. Standard width of lanes. Standard plug and outlets sizes (that would be a nightmare, and it's a pain anytime someone gets a custom power adapter). Free software offers a benefit to society. I think even the average joe might enjoy the idea of buying a copy and being able to use it on all their machines, and give/sell copies to others. It's nice. Why be at the mercy of propreitary to provide what you want and impose restrictions. Open standards would weaken problems sharing between applications etc, but why stop there?

[helpme]

The only point I can agree with is that open standards are important, other then that, I fundamentaly disagree.

First off, your assertion that only us hippies care about free software and open source is wrong. For example, for many companies making their code open source is a viable bussiness decision and they do so on economic grounds, not because of some ideology.

Further, free software gives its user rights far beyond what non-free software gives them. This alone makes free software superior at least in this regard.

This is of course especially important in developing countries, as free software gives these countries a far better opportunity to first off, not be dependend on only one vendor, and second, build and maintain local expertise and independence.

Finally, free software is one very important part in the battle against ever more restrictive, broad ranging IP laws, that, to make the problem worse, get a more and more global reach, in the process seriously deminishing any chance of many countries to develop.
In this sense, free software also is about how the future of, careful, buzzword ahead, a knowledge driven economy will look like.

[mostwanted]

First off, your assertion that only us hippies care about free software and open source is wrong. For example, for many companies making their code open source is a viable bussiness decision and they do so on economic grounds, not because of some ideology.

You're right about this, at least when it comes to servers you are. I do see big companies in the server business doing this right now, however, servers make up a very small part of corporate infrastructure. Intranet systems, office tools and other parts of most companies continue to be dominated by proprietary software.


Further, free software gives its user rights far beyond what non-free software gives them. This alone makes free software superior at least in this regard.

You're digressing a bit here and in the rest of your post. I wasn't arguing whether proprietary licenses are better than open source licenses, I was arguing that most people gives a rat's *** about how their software is licensed (and that I don't really care what kind of software other people use as long as it plays well with my software). In my opinion, open standards are automatically followed by open source, so advocating what makes the most sense to the most people... makes the most sense!

[helpme]

You're disgressing a bit here and in the rest of your post. I wasn't arguing whether proprietary licenses are better than open source licenses, I was arguing that most people gives a rat's *** about how their software is licensed. In my opinion, open standards are automatically followed by open source, so advocating what makes the most sense to the most people... makes the most sense!
No, I wasn't disgressing, I was arguing why people care about free software. They really do, especially in developing countries for the reasons given.

[mostwanted]

No, I wasn't disgressing, I was arguing why people care about free software. They really do, especially in developing countries for the reasons given.

Most people don't even know how software is made.

[helpme]

Most people don't even know how software is made.
And where exactly did I say that most people do?
I said you were wrong in thinking that only us hippies cared, however, I can't see how this translates into saying most people care.