Re: [-empyre-] fwd .. gnu..

[ben syverson <ben@bensyverson.com>]

Stahlman has his own personal (and I think narcissistic) reasons for 
pressing the use of "GNU-Linux." The fact is that whatever RMS wants us 
to think, "GNU" has a meaning forever linked to free and open source 
software (FOSS). Stahlman's objections to "open source" are largely 
semantic; most open source software is released under the GPL (General 
Public License) or a GPL-derivative license, which means that while you 
can charge for the program, the source code must also be available 
freely. So essentially, open source software is free. Why Stahlman 
thinks developers should *never* charge for their work is beyond me. 
His is a fascinating but quixotic quest.

But really, the discussion that our wordplay around [new/gnu/knew] has 
sparked serves to highlight how separate many people try to keep their 
categories. Does new media == gnu media? Let's not get caught up in a 
discussion of Stahlman. What is gnu media? Maybe it's Free and 
Open-Source Artware (FOSA), where "source" isn't limited to code. In a 
sense, isn't all artwork is free or open source, at least conceptually? 
Even if you're creating a painting, aren't you pulling code from other 
painters, adding some of your own code, and recompiling? Surely the 
commercial end of the art world is a genetic algorithm, producing many 
small variations, and then breeding the successful children. Is knew 
media is the bank of genetic code from which we pull?

Such is the evolution of mediums and movements.

- ben