[no subject]

The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and
modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole
community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a
precondition for this.

This means that any discussions should be made public. If not I feel I
like I'm loosing this freedom. How can I improve a program if I don't
know where the project is headed and reasons why the project is headed
in that direction (what are the goals of the project)?

Thanks

Brendan


On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Richard Stallman <rms gnu org> wrote:
>
> =A0 =A0Doesn't this undermines the values of the open source community?
>
> To cite the "values of open source" as an ethical standard is ironic,
> because the motive for open source was to avoid presenting an ethical
> standard.
>
> The founders of open source split off from the free software movement
> in 1998 with the aim of rejecting our ethical principles and values --
> for instance, the idea that we must respect the freedom of the users
> when we develop software. =A0They decided to present the matter as
> purely a practical recommendation, and not as principle at all.
> (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
> for more explanation of how open source differs from free software.)
> So it is ironic that some see it as a principle in itself.
>
> Openness as a principle is no substitute for freedom, which is why
> GNOME needs to remember the free software ideals and not identify
> primarily with "open source". =A0But openness does have value, so I'd
> prefer not to limit access to this list.