by open source i mean open and free software.

1.) it made software available for nothing.
people think software shouldnt be paid for ,its so hard
for individual developers to compete with free-

2.) software developers have gained the scorn of other professionals who can't appreciate
what it takes to create simple software because
freer more complete version abound on the internet.

3.) open source has festered an entitlement mentallity.
software is the only product people expect to be
created and given away for FREE.
after air no product is free CLEAN AIR isnt free only
bad polluted air.

4.) open source has cost more jobs than outsourcing.
because you can't compete with free.
5.) open source has cost more lost revenue for companies.
because they have to sell for almost-free to compete
banking on mass sales to rake in revenue.
6.) A car manufacture can charge 6 figures for 1 car,
a house can sell for 7 figures
a lawyer can bill clients at $1,000 an hour
no software developer can bill so and stay in business.
a surgery can cost 6 figures and people expect
it to be expensive
but software costing above 100 dollars (3 figures)
and many hours or months of work
gets people looking at the seller like he's a thief!!
- thanks open source!!.

7.) free software shot itself in the foot -
its not really about money but perception.
By giving away so much value for $0 it has only
accumulated contempt from users - much like a woman
accumulates contempt for being an easy lay -
law , accounting, medicine big money professions
on the hand have accumulated respect and prestige
inspite of their atrocious fees.
thank you open source.

8.)
With a degree in computer science -
and your ability to code - you're regarded as an artisan.
people ask and wonder "will you still be programming/designing websites at age X?"
people dont ask will you still b practicing law,medicine,accounting at age X?
this shows how that programming is a field to get away from!
- its unprestigious and menial.
a situation worsened by free software.

Oh my.

If Open source has been doom and gloom, then you're yet to grasp its core driving motives.

What would you say of Linux, Apache, Mozilla, Python, and the thousands of shining light of the FLOSS movement?

free source has had it's much touted good side my post was about the after and dark effect of libre software. Besides free soft while having the noble motive of protecting user freedom has always been anti to commercial software a case exemplified in the spite against ubuntu linux by libre software purists because ubuntu is supported by a commercial enterprise.

I'm mostly interested in the qualifications of the OP. How long has he been writing software if he has written any. What research he has done to solidify his reasoning. And maybe a thing or two about redhat's or google's business models.

John

On further thought. I felt I should address the concerns of the OP in my own little experience:

1.) it made software available for nothing.
people think software shouldnt be paid for ,its so hard
for individual developers to compete with free-

People can make money from customizing open source software. And even from proprietary applications. In Nigeria, young developers like you build sim registration software and are making tens of millions if not hundreds. Is that open source?

2.) software developers have gained the scorn of other professionals who can't appreciate
what it takes to create simple software because
freer more complete version abound on the internet.

sources please?

3.) open source has festered an entitlement mentallity.
software is the only product people expect to be
created and given away for FREE.
after air no product is free CLEAN AIR isnt free only
bad polluted air.

again, I highlighted how money can be made there. Nevertheless, sources for your claim is still needed.
And I'll suggest a good research into the business model surrounding open source and how companies have sold their
open source code for millions

4.) open source has cost more jobs than outsourcing.
because you can't compete with free.
5.) open source has cost more lost revenue for companies.
because they have to sell for almost-free to compete
banking on mass sales to rake in revenue.
6.) A car manufacture can charge 6 figures for 1 car,
a house can sell for 7 figures
a lawyer can bill clients at $1,000 an hour
no software developer can bill so and stay in business.
a surgery can cost 6 figures and people expect
it to be expensive
but software costing above 100 dollars (3 figures)
and many hours or months of work
gets people looking at the seller like he's a thief!!
- thanks open source!!.

Don't be confused by competition coming from big software shops like microsoft, oracle, SAP. Open source is not your problem, look elsewhere!. Don't write solutions to problems that have been solved. Look for problems that need solving. You have to train your eyes to see them and read voraciously. Trust me that's your path to salvation in this business. And problems abound yet to be solved in your country too numerous to mention. Have you got the skills is the real question here. Health care, ministries, enterprise solutions, brother wake up from your slumber!

7.) free software shot itself in the foot -
its not really about money but perception.
By giving away so much value for $0 it has only
accumulated contempt from users - much like a woman
accumulates contempt for being an easy lay -
law , accounting, medicine big money professions
on the hand have accumulated respect and prestige
inspite of their atrocious fees.
thank you open source.

how much did you pay for your operating system. I'll like you to donate $10,000 to your programming platform of choice. Do that I have a whole lot of list of things yo need to shed $$$ for. Hurry!

With a degree in computer science -
and your ability to code - you're regarded as an artisan.
people ask and wonder "will you still be programming/designing websites at age X?"
people dont ask will you still b practicing law,medicine,accounting at age X?
this shows how that programming is a field to get away from!
- its unprestigious and menial.
a situation worsened by free software.

this is actually the most interesting disillusioned question. It might be interesting to note that CS is one of the best fields to be working in while you're aged. Just sit, think, type, publish, && make money, that is if you're smart to figure how broad street does business. Moreover who says your career is guaranteed with a common degree in CS. Why do we have Phds and life long learning. Have you studied Logic thoroughly, Data Modelling, Machine Learning, Bayesian Probability, Matrix, Computational Complexity, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, etc. Hello!

John

Hmm, a real food for thought. But wit mobile technology, i guess its a whole new game. Since wit as little as $0.99 wit download of say 500,000, one will surely reap from his labor from an IDEA . Dont you think?

PARDON THE LONG POST DUDES BUT .. AINT GAT NO TIME TO EDIT..drink the whole slup all of it...
---------
You guys should stop acting as if somebody snatched your feeding bottle. i know you like sucking the open source sup but
clear your head,put the bottle away and think along.
I know you all like this open source thing - me too.
but i'm not ignorant of its impact.
Libre software (software given away for free ) is software that
was designed to empower the users. there's strong pragmatic
incentive for creating libre software , i wont enumerate here.
However, for each libre software that hit the street, commercial
software lost one.
total the domino effect of so many libre software running on pc's
see what income could have gone into the world economic system.

libre software has been good to me as a programmer.
libre software has been good to most poor folks as end users.
but libre software has been a heavy economic meteor on the world it hit. the world is yet to compute the loss so far.

to give you an example of libre instances that were cracked down upon
:
free music sharing --- napster (music industry cried fowl , cracked
down on it seriously. the cried out for
loss of free revenue.

outcome of the napster file sharing application debuting:
most artiste discovered that they were static cows, being milked
by their record labels , who made so much from their sweat and paid
them less.
yes,the music industry is cabalistics and devious.
libre software exposed this but didnt empower the artists
economically. )

ebooks ,edocuments p2p file sharing applications :
limewire,kaaza etc ------ ( gave users access to economic digital goods without pay denying creators of the products any form of economic compensation. civilized society litigated against limewire and the rest, end result: limewire , kaaza were shut down.
what was the grouse of the aggrieved parties against limewire,kaaza,
demonoid?! - denial of economic revenue)

The very nature of libre software is in principle to empower end-users,
but that goal is a two-edged sword, by empowering users by giving away free alternatives - you are equally creating a substitutionary effect
that creates economic ripples.
for every software you or anybody uses or acquires for free,
an commercial alternative is forgone!
this mass effect - is bad for any economy.

do i enjoy libre software sure! - i would have made the progress i've made at the speed i've made it without libre software.
but is it true that many people wouldnt have gotten into programming/web dev if there was no libre software. Yes yes yes.
there wouldnt have been many programmers because of the price tag.
This is the bane of the capitalist system.it will always create
an excluded residue.
But on the good side, software would have earned greater respect,
not all software has acquired any form of respect,
for most classes of software there's as much respect for it as
there is for dirt.that's because these classes of software have
been free for so long.

Please folks, stop the personal diversion, i didnt write the essay because i've been stung by free software, and i never insinuated such
in my statement i dont know where you guys got that from.
My personal qualification has no bearing on what i'm posting,
to make such a comment i dont even need any technical qualification,
this is simply an accessment of a trend on an economic system.

>> Fedora linux (see wikipedia)
was developed at an estimated value exceeding $1B dollars!!
i mean the developers deserve medals for their altruism, great.
give them standing ovations and claps.
but think alternatively,
what if fedora were developed at an actual payout of $1B?
developers would be paid,
the economy would be $1b richer, the multiplier effect
would have increased the money like dough!
but for now, the group of developers have invested $1B worth
of economic effort without any compensation.
When a user downloads Fedora or any linux distribution,
do they appreciate the fact that it is worth $1B+? no.
its like trash , its like other internet dust they gather on their
system. But for the software they shelled out money for
there is appreciation.
With so much free software for grabs, the world has been spoiled
silly by a movement that supposedly decided to go after big
organized companies!! too bad it shot itself in the foot.

>> gratis is nice to have but money is better:

How many people use google adsense world over!?
so many.
why? google isnt giving away free advertising. Google
is a corporation that is profit motivated. And
you only need to look around you at the many web developers,
work at home moms, unemployed folks (fired from the corporate world)
that have made fortunes from a software capitalist.
Because google pays out cash, many folks in 3rd world countries
that would have been looking up to government or roaming the street,
have money in their pocket.
The owner of this forum i bet you would never want to lose his adsense dollars for some altruistic libre enthusiast.

Gratis is disrespectful of the value invested in a product.

if i put in 1 000 hours into a making a frivolous product, and then give it
away for free. then i really dont have much respect for my time or
i had so much free time to burn.
it's even more foolish if i have bills to pay.
if an entire movement makes a goal to create and give away
large chunks of world class products for free,
then they shouldnt blame the end user world for
having a condescending attitude for software.

>> The end user community despises gratis software:

Think of many corporations that hate php.
the use corporation backed software for their development.
think of many who use Oracle ,shelling thousands of dollars,
to buy and use it for data storage.
Think of many who use mysql,but pinch their noses to use it,
furiously planning on vanquishing it with a better commercial
alternative.
so what has free software succeeded in acheiving? garnering
contempt for themselves?!
Think of the folks who steal to buy a blackberry,
hate their pc and dream of a mac!?
think of the movies shown with apple laptops co-starring.
libre software has garnered tonnes of contempt.
thanks for its socialist thinking.

>> Libre software is digital socialism.

you may not like this,but socialist russia and india,
were noted for their austere unbalanced standards.
socialism bred poverty.
only the beaurocracy benefitted from the largesse of
the land. the so called equitable re distribution of
factors of living was a farce.
why so?
because gratis and altruism cannot sustain productive motivation,
but hopes of raking in big money or (small or some money) has
provided high octane fuel to propel people to put in their best
at work.
Most pure libre software are so terribly documented, have
crappy interfaces , are so technical as to scare of
lay users,suffer from poor support, straggles along
commercial variants (Not all the time though)
,its apparent money is needed to prop folks up.

>> most popular libre softwares have benefitted from corporate support
mor than it cares to give credit for.

think of developer tools here:
Eclipse ide - worth 40M (great - but libre guys hate corporates!!)
netbeans ide -
java - (oracle support)
openjdk - (couldnt continue after ibm pulled out!! oops.
)
c++ (brought to limelight and sustained by microsofts visual c++ series)

Basic (would died in academia had microsoft not created vb)

perl ( popularised by oreilly books )

lisp (languishing language for lack of corporate backing..)


>> capitalist software still strongly preferred.

Ask users of c++ ides , they'll tell you visual studio is it.
many hard core programmers use evil empires visual studio
the sell for as high as $5000+ . yeah.
so long mingw and free software.
so long.

>> free software often go been underutilized
(backfiring of over supply)

think for example. i download tonnes of ebooks.
there are some i've not even read or flipped a look
in a long time!!
but i got it cuz its free.
this means i've not gotten as much satisfaction from
their acquisition as i would have if they were more scarce.
The over abundance and ease of acquisition has led to
waste.
how many wasted breathes do you take in a day!?
no thanks to over supply.
on the other hand,
if i had to buy each ebook i bet i'd really want
to consume it thoroughly.
some linux distros have tonnes of software that the
user will never even use!
yet, addicted to the acquisition some users
will download all linux distros out there.
ever noticed how people queue up to buy apple products?
that's because the price of apple stuffs are royal!.
When you get an apple product you want to show off (most people do)
nobody wants to show with the one-laptop-per-child libre
stuff.

>> libre software movement aims to open up any software with a large
user base!
-------
all fundamental software have been "liberated".
Think about the richest people in the world,
they make their money from sellling essentials.
not luxuries.
bill gates sold a software without which a computer cudnt be used.
Mtn sells air time, phone services are essentials.
Wal mart sells groceries and household goods at low prices.
Dangote sells salt,sugar,flour,etc (food)

now, in the software arena,
essential software like text editors,
calculators,
clocks, etc have all been liberated - if this were not the case,
$Billions would have been made of them.
libre software movement has moved to create free versions of
any software with a worldwide user base!!
oops . i see so many software millionaires kicked out of the gravy train.
while you can download 10 text editors for free and delete them
at will, this so called basic applications are outcomes of
expenditure of economic resources.
you may argue that for any libre software they're folks who've made
money by offering side services- true.
but the money made from a side service to a libre software
cannot compare the money that could have been made if the
software were not free.


>> stop re inventing the wheel? (silly advice)
its only in software you hear this.
in other industries they make money by not-innovating!
they re invent the wheel year in year out and rake in
$Billions . in software, the developer has to keep on his toes,
because the last big innovation has been "liberated"! yuck.

>> there's money to be made in software?!
-----------------------------------
of course, there some open niches,but honestly,
that's because, those niches are too peculiar for open source
to invade.
e.g locale based software. tailored to a particular country.

I'll give a case in point.

there are many version control systems.
bitkeeper,subversion,mercurial,etc.
there are also commercial variants.

some use commercial version, others use free versions.
users now have a free alternative and cry foul if
commercial price is to high because they can always dump it
and pick up free- and if free doesnt do what they like,
they can tweak it!
muck.
what it there wasnt even free to start with?
then only commercial wold b available?
and how much would commercial cost! over the roof!
making some guy a millionaire faster.
but the libre enthusiasts have killed the bargaining
power of non-free software. and free software is steadily
dragging price of non-free software down to its hapless level.
the only exceptions here are like i said , niche software.

i hope you guys are getting my drift.
I love libre software - free compilers, free editors , free bit torrent client etc,
but thats for me a developer,
the altruisic spirit of libre software is noble.
the moral objective of empowering the user is applaudable
but the point is libre software aftermaths like carbon and noise emission from
a lister generator cannot not have economic negative consequences which
i care to outline here.
some of your retorts occur because of your unwillingness to ascribe sour truth
to a cause that has been so praised.
ha.
suck the sour grapes sirs. its good for you all.
clear your minds with some alkaline juice..

niceee!! Nice thread

OP: you've really not made any concrete argument for your case. I think you need to clarify between software given for free and open source software. It is a known fact that open-source software can actually be charged for. You also need to understand the role that software licenses play in this case. One of the motivating factors of opensource initiative was to facilitate contribution from developers living across different geographies in order to build robust and secure software. This has facilitated the writing of the linux OS(operating system), to be precise the GNU/Linux OS, which is a mystery to the world: how can an OS that is open source be so secure. More secure than it's closed source counterparts. This has led to replication of this successful open source model by different visionary initiators from different aspect of the ecosystem.

To really appreciate this, you need to read up on the story of Richard Stallman, the chair of the FSF(Free Software Foundation) the difficulty he met at the time and why he worked towards that initiative. He cannot over-stress that free software represents freedom as in free speech and not as in free beer. Imagine that you bought your car and were told that you cannot touch the engine or use another brand of tires or don't even change the fabric when they are old. It behooves me how you can come out so confidently to speak less knowledgeably about the motives of the Free and Open Source Initiatives.

The point to be made from your case is one of concern. Yes there are issues as such as you have raised. They need to be considered and refined to suit your purpose. You have choices, one of which is to choose not to use free or open source software. When you do choose there is a law to abide by to that that effect.
Also your claims relating to warez activites where others work are being given away for free has nothing to do with Open Source Software. Take a break and co-ordinate your thoughts. That co-ordination may come with a bit of effort especially when you begin getting exposed to what IT is all about. I'm sure you'll overcome.

fallguy: i hope you guys are getting my drift.
I love libre software - free compilers, free editors , free bit torrent client etc,
but thats for me a developer,
the altruisic spirit of libre software is noble.
the moral objective of empowering the user is applaudable
but the point is libre software aftermaths like carbon and noise emission from
a lister generator cannot not have economic negative consequences which
i care to outline here.
some of your retorts occur because of your unwillingness to ascribe sour truth
to a cause that has been so praised.
ha.
suck the sour grapes sirs. its good for you all.
clear your minds with some alkaline juice..

Personally, I care little about how much you love free software. I value pragmatism more. How useful would the world have been without free software. You have admitted that you probably would have been of very little use to society when it comes to computers if not for free and open source software. That is what your gaze should focus on not on the little crumbs that would have remained on the table.

Look on those that have thought you the little that you know, and figure out how they are getting it right. And I assure you they are. If you prefer closed source mentors, they abound and are making a lot of money and GOOD and not EVIL like the title to your post has portrayed.

And you must also avoid the habit of portraying yourself around as someone with a Boko Harram mentality which sees western education as an EVIL.

@OP, Dude u really need to do some research before posting stuff online. I think u have the common misconception about open source. Let me start off by saying this, Open Source Software (OSS) is NOT free software. True, most open source software are/can be obtained free of charge but don't go thinking that OSS means free as in free beer. U mentioned Napster and bittorrent protocol, go read up on them and u'll be surprised to see that they are actually proprietary softwares. That they are free is simply because the devs choose to make them free. Symbian OS is an Open Source software but it's not free. So, what exactly is OSS? In layman's terms, it simply means any software that the devs give out the source code to anyone that wants to get it without asking for money. U might ask, what stops such a person from modifying and releasing another software based on the original code? Licensing. Open Source licences ensure that even though people have access to view and modify your code, when they do so (even if it's just one line), they MUST credit the original devs work and also release their code as well, both upstream and to anyone that wants to view it. Now, if we were to follow your earlier description of OSS, we would call these softwares open source, Adobe Flash, Windows Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, Internet Explorer, Safari browser etc. These are very common free softwares we use everyday but yet, they are proprietary softwares. Do you know that apps like Lotus Symphony, Zimbra, Asterisk, etc which are commerial products are actually OSS? Now you know what OSS actually means don't go round saying things like what you said here next time.

^^
you should learn to read the philosophy of a detailed argument fully before spouting half baked comments.
I in the earlier posts I grouped open source and software given away for free as Libre software
and made my point on one aspect of it that is detrimental - mainly economically detrimental.
i dont want to elaborate some more that would be redundant.
come away from your typical mentallity which is the conventional praise of libre software
on moral grounds to access the other darker side of the argument i pushed.
johnbendie couldnt follow the argument i proposed which is a valid argument -
but veered over to praising libre software on its moral grounds -
morally, libre software advocates could (and have ) won national medals-
economically, the detriment of this librality is inevitable. do some thinking on this before
replying.
the devastation of libre software is not only economical but also projectural.
johnbendie said money could be made with open source still, i mean libre software ,
e.g people make money creating wordpress themes.
that's a pale response.
peripheral industries would inevitably have sprung up around any popular technology.
the peripheral industries would generate a tidy sum but not as high as what would be
generated by the commercial rakings of the main technology itself.
in a way the impact is hard to compute because it is an opportunity cost , not an
actual cost that is forgone,nevertheless the opportunity which is still a cost,
runs into (my estimate) $trillions!!.
it is this opportunity cost forgone by the libre spirit that i say is evil!
because an injection of that amount into the world economy - would have generated
lots more money! more billionaires - i'm talking from an objective and capitalist viewpoint.
i know what open source licenses state - dont educate me on that.
if you're to counter fault the core of my argument not tarry on fringe issues.
i grouped free and open software under libre software. my point is not obtuse so
stay on track and reply to the issue i brought up.
".. dont go around saying things like you said here next time.. "
- any sweeping reply. what "did i say here next time" , quote me within context!.

Still in defence of not only Open Source Software but also Open Source Knowledge:

http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships

fallguy: ^^
you should learn to read the philosophy of a detailed argument fully before spouting half baked comments.
I in the earlier posts I grouped open source and software given away for free as Libre software
and made my point on one aspect of it that is detrimental - mainly economically detrimental.
i dont want to elaborate some more that would be redundant.
come away from your typical mentallity which is the conventional praise of libre software
on moral grounds to access the other darker side of the argument i pushed.
johnbendie couldnt follow the argument i proposed which is a valid argument -
but veered over to praising libre software on its moral grounds -
morally, libre software advocates could (and have ) won national medals-
economically, the detriment of this librality is inevitable. do some thinking on this before
replying.
the devastation of libre software is not only economical but also projectural.
johnbendie said money could be made with open source still, i mean libre software ,
e.g people make money creating wordpress themes.
that's a pale response.
peripheral industries would inevitably have sprung up around any popular technology.
the peripheral industries would generate a tidy sum but not as high as what would be
generated by the commercial rakings of the main technology itself.
in a way the impact is hard to compute because it is an opportunity cost , not an
actual cost that is forgone,nevertheless the opportunity which is still a cost,
runs into (my estimate) $trillions!!.
it is this opportunity cost forgone by the libre spirit that i say is evil!
because an injection of that amount into the world economy - would have generated
lots more money! more billionaires - i'm talking from an objective and capitalist viewpoint.
i know what open source licenses state - dont educate me on that.
if you're to counter fault the core of my argument not tarry on fringe issues.
i grouped free and open software under libre software. my point is not obtuse so
stay on track and reply to the issue i brought up.
".. dont go around saying things like you said here next time.. "
- any sweeping reply. what "did i say here next time" , quote me within context!.

Well, what can I say? It's kinda hard trying to argue with someone already arguing with himself. Little advice. Next time u want to start a thread, let the content of the thread stick to the name you gave it.
SMH @ "I grouped Open source and Software given away for free as Libre Software". As if all Open Source software are given away for free or vice-versa.

P.S. Hope u know that " Libre" means "Free"?

open source or free software?

@skywalker

in case you dont know what context means - it would be better for you to
read comments and arguments and understand their context before firing.
when r. stallman used the word "libre" to describe the kind of "freedom" he was advocating
he qualified it to mean - free (to alter and modify the program) not socialistic freedom (to restrict or forbid selling the software or forbid a programmer earning money from his labour- though theyre strong elements of socialism in open source software movement).
In the context , i've used here -
i first used "open source" the term to encompass all software that are either
"open" - source code available
or/and - "free" - executable /(source code available).
most people praise open source on moral grounds , which i agree is commendable.
but on other grounds - it is detrimental for the very reason it is free.
the context is clearly understood - the term used is not so misleading as to befuddle
or confuse any thinking person .
so why is the choice of term such an issue here.
from the context of my argument -
closed source software , with opened up source code - will still create this effect
because the source code could be replicated and spunned off and recompiled and redistributed (though not likely . )
besides - most proprietary software RARELY open up their source code.
so the bulk of opened source programs are also libre - in the context stallman explained-
.

--
in your previous post you went to great lenghts to tell me the diff btw open source
and free software.
you said adobe , microsoft, yahoo messenger give away free software but are not free.
this has no direct bearing and is out of context of the point i was making.
microsoft,adobe ,yahoo rake in $Billions of actual dollars a year.
therefore they are economic boosters to their countries economy (and to the world's economy as a whole.
And they still spin off - peripheral industries . much like
non free laptops create jobs for laptop repairers and accessory makers.
debunking the counter point that open source /libre software (e.g wordpress)
create jobs in the peripheral waters)
yahoo and adobe are not economically detrimental- one of the thrusts of
my arguments about open source being evil.
microsoft and yahoo are not "libre" in the sense i meant.
i use "libre" in the sense , richard stallman , used and i used it
with the understanding that "libre" doesnt exactly translate to "free" in english.
it more like free+ (free plus additional qualifications)
qualifications like: free to alter to ones hearts delight not just free to run on ones system.
Again, which software classes fall under the "libre" software i'm talking about?
, if i have to explain this to you or anybody - then maybe you should nt be reading this.
the most popular open source iconic applications are "libre".
- free to alter,modify,distribute,charge money for, sell,resell etc.
this class of products have detrimental value economically which is little talked about.
despite their morally laudable values.


@skywalker - if you dont want to not come off as shallow,
argue to the main point of an argument instead of
engaging in character attacks or making peripheral snide comments.
you've neither argued to the points raised or countered - so why the
petty side talk?

@all - if you're still confused - no reasonable reader will be .
then intereprete it as you think i mean after reading my previous posts.
interprete it in the light of what the average person means by "open source " software.
when the average netizen uses the term "open source" what comes to mind!?

you should probably use "free software" instead

Morrelinko: open source or free software?

Abeg help me ask the dude o.

pyguru: you should probably use "free software" instead

exactly what I have been trying to get across to him but he has this strange idea that open source and free software should be grouped 2geda under a new group called Libre Software.