Comments on: trust http://mikehearn.wordpress.com/2005/12/04/trust/ Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:22:13 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Mike http://mikehearn.wordpress.com/2005/12/04/trust/#comment-387 Mike Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:45:46 +0000 http://plan99.net/~mike/blog/?p=7#comment-387 You're nitpicking at terminology. Yes, I'm aware that some people use Stallmans distinction between the free software movement and the open source movement: I don't, for anybody who isn't deeply involved with the community it's a confusing abuse of equivalent (to them) terms. You’re nitpicking at terminology. Yes, I’m aware that some people use Stallmans distinction between the free software movement and the open source movement: I don’t, for anybody who isn’t deeply involved with the community it’s a confusing abuse of equivalent (to them) terms.

]]> By: J.B. Nicholson-Owens http://mikehearn.wordpress.com/2005/12/04/trust/#comment-386 J.B. Nicholson-Owens Fri, 09 Dec 2005 06:39:27 +0000 http://plan99.net/~mike/blog/?p=7#comment-386 The Free Software Movement focuses on the social effect on people by asking the most important question one can ask--how should we treat other people? That movement's answer is to create and sustain a community where we can become interdependent by granting one another the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify computer software. This community is not possible with proprietary software because you don't have the rights you need (nor the source code) to grant those rights to others or engage in those acts yourself. The Open Source Movement doesn't talk about ethics. That's one of the issues that the founders of that movement decided not to raise. That movement speaks to businesses, chiefly, about how to better leverage a pool of talented free labor. That movement's founders decided early on that software freedom talk would get in the way of communicating their philosophy to their intended audience. That's why that movement talks about the speed, cost, and lack of bugs developed in the Open Source methodology. The Free Software Movement focuses on the social effect on people by asking the most important question one can ask–how should we treat other people? That movement’s answer is to create and sustain a community where we can become interdependent by granting one another the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify computer software. This community is not possible with proprietary software because you don’t have the rights you need (nor the source code) to grant those rights to others or engage in those acts yourself.

The Open Source Movement doesn’t talk about ethics. That’s one of the issues that the founders of that movement decided not to raise. That movement speaks to businesses, chiefly, about how to better leverage a pool of talented free labor. That movement’s founders decided early on that software freedom talk would get in the way of communicating their philosophy to their intended audience. That’s why that movement talks about the speed, cost, and lack of bugs developed in the Open Source methodology.

]]> By: Mike http://mikehearn.wordpress.com/2005/12/04/trust/#comment-385 Mike Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:38:39 +0000 http://plan99.net/~mike/blog/?p=7#comment-385 It depends how you define "untrustworthy". I can't read minds, but I still trust my friends. This seems no different to software - I can't always see what makes it tick but I can still trust it. If you want to get theoretical, then even if I can see /some/ source code that doesn't mean it actually equals the binaries I'm running - even if I compile it myself the well known story of the cracked compiler shows that at some point you just have to have blind faith that your setup is trustworthy. Also, being open source doesn't necessarily make software an example of ethics - this blog runs WordPress: http://www.waxy.org/archive/2005/03/30/wordpres.shtml It depends how you define “untrustworthy”. I can’t read minds, but I still trust my friends. This seems no different to software – I can’t always see what makes it tick but I can still trust it.

If you want to get theoretical, then even if I can see /some/ source code that doesn’t mean it actually equals the binaries I’m running – even if I compile it myself the well known story of the cracked compiler shows that at some point you just have to have blind faith that your setup is trustworthy.

Also, being open source doesn’t necessarily make software an example of ethics – this blog runs WordPress:

http://www.waxy.org/archive/2005/03/30/wordpres.shtml

]]> By: J.B. Nicholson-Owens http://mikehearn.wordpress.com/2005/12/04/trust/#comment-384 J.B. Nicholson-Owens Mon, 05 Dec 2005 17:42:45 +0000 http://plan99.net/~mike/blog/?p=7#comment-384 Nobody in the Free Software Movement asks users to "understand and audit their source code". The Free Software Movement's message says that people should have the freedom to do so. When users run proprietary software they are denied the freedom to do this for themselves or to get someone else to do it for them. The only people who can do this are those motivated to take advantage of the users. Users deserve software freedom (the freedom to inspect, run, share, and modify computer software) and proprietary software, regardless of ostensible purpose, is untrustworthy. --J.B. Nicholson-Owens (jbn@forestfield.org) Nobody in the Free Software Movement asks users to “understand and audit their source code”. The Free Software Movement’s message says that people should have the freedom to do so. When users run proprietary software they are denied the freedom to do this for themselves or to get someone else to do it for them. The only people who can do this are those motivated to take advantage of the users.

Users deserve software freedom (the freedom to inspect, run, share, and modify computer software) and proprietary software, regardless of ostensible purpose, is untrustworthy.

–J.B. Nicholson-Owens (jbn@forestfield.org)

]]>