Philosophy

In our earlier article, "Facts and Friction on Open Source and Free Software" we have explained where "Open Source" is coming from and what is its relation to Free Software and the Free Software Foundation that represents it. One of the points made was that the term Open Source deliberately de-emphasized a certain aspect of what defines Free Software as originally specified by the FSF in order to make Free Software, albeit under the new term, better appeal to the business world. ...

When I first read Kathy Sierra's last blog entry I felt angered and annoyed, to a point of just wishing to stay agnostic to the whole case as a display of primitivism that the collective intelligence of the blogosphere will resolve by itself....

Let's break this thick glass once and for all. Patching free operating systems like GNU/Linux with proprietary pieces is not mandatory for world prevalence. And it sure is not mandatory for basic functioning of the system anymore either, so you can't exactly use the "RMS used proprietary UNIX to build GNU" argument anymore. We have the complete Free OS. We have three of them. Now we have to go further and build a market around them, on our own or with help of others. We have to do it either way. [b]1. Mixing oil with water: the prevalence of a mixed operating environment[/b] ...

This is not an FSF publication and even if it were associated with FSF in some official way, it wouldn't be an FSF propaganda site, contrary to what some might be thinking. This is a discussion site and keeping an open mind is one of the top priorities here. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be such an important principle to some in the GNU community. For quite a few times now I have encountered what I believe to be a dangerous trend among some people in the GNU community. ...

I suppose you might be one of the 4 billion people who have supposedly watched the opening ceremony of Olympics in Bejing so there's a good chance there's no need for me to introduce you to what it is. ...

I still define liberty as a state of being in which you're free to do "whatever floats your boat as long as it doesn't sink mine". From my perspective this reflects non-aggression or non-coercion and obviously requires tolerance. It is predicated on the belief that even while you believe others to be wrong about their beliefs and their acts to be evil, you would not interfere by force if they don't initiate force on you or anyone else. ...

Wouldn't it be correct to assume that responsible use of technology equals use of technology in a way that doesn't disrupt freedom (so it empowers everyone rather than empowering a minority at the inevitable expense of everyone else)? Part of the reason I'm asking is that even as I established that a vision of the world set in front of Libervis Network, as it's most general goal, is a world in which technology is used in a responsible way, I still somehow draw a direct parallel between that concept and freedom. ...

Because we're debating what political system is "right", it might be fun to play [url=http://www.nationstates.net/]this little nation simulation game[/url] for a while, and see how our opinions work out in prac... er... someones theory. I've played it before a few years ago, it hardly takes any time, and it's free and funny. So let's play :) ! After creating your own nation, please move it to the region named "Libervisia". The region password is "www.libervis.net", without the quotes....

an insightful essay about internal freedom of speech...

Bruce Schneier explains security and privacy are the same. Very insightful....

Bruce Schneier explains the economics of lock-in....

Another definition of free/open (web)service....