[ cynique @ 31.05.2006. 10:36 ] @
| http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3471 Jako dobra demistifikacija nekih općenito zdravo-za-gotovo uzetih FUD-ova koje zagovornici open-source softvera vole papagajski ponavljati. Između ostaloga tu su floskule o tome kako: - open source softver ima manje bugova/sigurniji je od closed-source softvera zato jer više komrada ima pristup The Source-u - open source softver je lakše i bezbolnije kastomizirat za specifičnu uporabu (zbog dostupnosti koda, jelte) - open source softver je lakše održavati i mijenjati (pošto su svi programeri i linux ima savršenu up-to-date dokumentaciju koju Štef ukapira dok pije jutarnju kavicu) Prebacujemo se na DRM frontu. http://www.infoworld.com/artic...tml?source=NLC-OPENT2006-05-30 All the more reason to be disappointed by the FSF's recent, regrettable spiral into misplaced neopolitical activism, far removed from its own stated first principles. In particular, the FSF's moralistic opposition to DRM (digital rights management) technologies, which first manifested itself in early drafts of Version 3 of the GPL (Gnu General Public License), seems now to have been elevated to the point of evangelical dogma. The FSF's most recent effort -- an anti-DRM protest staged at Microsoft's WinHEC conference last week, complete with demonstrators costumed in hazmat suits -- was particularly troubling. It signals a shift in the FSF, from an advocacy organization to one that engages in hysterical activism cut from the PETA mold. ... But the FSF has chosen a different path. Convinced, perhaps, that average consumers are too stupid to know what's good for them, it's embarked on a mission that's even more insidious than the DRM it opposes. No DRM system ever told an artist what notes to play or what lyrics were OK to sing. But the FSF seems intent on doing just that. One of the original tenets of the GPL was that users of software should be free, not just to run the software and make copies of it, but to examine its code and improve on it. Free software means, among other things, the freedom of programmers to write code. But not, apparently, under the new FSF order. In this new worldview, DRM is Wrong. It is verboten. And who knows what other algorithm or subroutine might be cast out next; but who are we to question? By abandoning social and economic arguments in favor of a moral one, the FSF is in effect telling us that God is on its side. This shift is very troubling. Among its other devices, the FSF has chosen to unilaterally re-christen DRM as "digital restrictions management." If I were to stoop to that level, I might describe the FSF as the "Fundamentalist Software Foundation." But why go there? If free software is going to maintain its relevance to the broader user and business community, it must resist the temptation toward further radicalism, give up the name-calling and demagoguery, and re-embrace the rationality that Richard Stallman has demonstrated in the past. Free software has proved its worth. That good reputation can only be damaged by turning a movement into a crusade |
