From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- .../blog/articles/en/drdobbs-letter.html | 144 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 144 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/drdobbs-letter.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/drdobbs-letter.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/drdobbs-letter.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/drdobbs-letter.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f34fe4a --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/drdobbs-letter.html @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ + + +Letter to the Editor of Dr. Dobb's Journal +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + +

Letter to the Editor of Dr. Dobb's Journal

+ +

+Dear Editor, +

+

+I am sure you don't realize how ironic it is to associate me and Tim +O'Reilly with “open source”. +

+

+If the House Un-American Activities Committee asked me, “Are you +now or have you ever been a supporter of the open source +movement,” I could proudly and cheerfully say no. I've been +campaigning since 1984 for free software—free as in +freedom. (See the GNU Manifesto, Dr. Dobb's Journal, Sept. 1985.) +

+

+Free software means, roughly, that you are free to study what it does, +free to change it, free to redistribute it, and free to publish +improved versions. +(See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html +for more details.) You deserve these freedoms; everyone deserves +them. I wrote the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), the target +of Microsoft's greatest +ire, to defend these freedoms for all users, in the spirit of the +free software movement. +

+

+Years later, in 1998, another group began operating under the term +“open source”. They have contributed to the free software +community in practical ways, but they stand for very different views. +They studiously avoid the issues of freedom and principle that we +raise in the free software movement; they cite only short-term +practical benefits as the reasons for what they do. +

+

+Their stated definition for the term “open source” is +somewhat broader than free software, and thus includes my work. But +describing the GNU GPL as an “open source license,” as +Microsoft did, is more than half misleading. The GNU GPL embodies the +firm philosophy of the free software movement; it doesn't come from +the open source movement. I am not a supporter of the open source +movement, and never have been. +

+

+Tim O'Reilly, by contrast, is a pillar of the open source movement, at +least to hear him tell it. However, if you look at actions rather +than words, most of the manuals published by O'Reilly Associates do +not qualify as open source, let alone as free. The handful of free +titles are exceptions. He could easily excuse himself to +HUAC—“Yes, +I talked about open source, but I didn't really do much of it.” +

+

+If O'Reilly moves to selling free-as-in-freedom books in the future, he +could become a true supporter of the free software movement, or at least +the open source movement. [Later in 2001, O'Reilly Associates published a +couple of additional free books. We are grateful for this contribution to +the free software community, and we look forward to more of the same.] +

+

+With the recent founding of FSF-Europe, and the coming inauguration of +FSF-India, the free software movement is going stronger than ever. +Please don't lump us in with the other movement in our community. +

+

+Sincerely, +

+

+     Richard Stallman +President, +Free Software Foundation +

+ + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3