
1990s, Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source" (1998)
Quoted in "Linux Game Publishing - it's possible" http://mstation.org/linuxgamepublishing.php M station (2003)
1990s, Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source" (1998)
Quoted in "Linux Game Publishing: An Interview With Michael Simms" http://web.archive.org/web/20050712080821/http://www.linuxgazette.com/node/10249 Linux Gazette (2005-06-03)
p, 125
Research by the Business Itself (1945)
1990s, Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source" (1998)
Context: While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas.
In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using the term "open source software" instead of "free software" to describe what they do. The term "open source" quickly became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are today separate movements with different views and goals, although we can and do work together on some practical projects.
The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, "Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement." For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.
Go Open Source puts R3m into building Linux channel, Tectonic staff, Tectonic, South Africa, 2006-01-30, 2011-09-11 http://www.tectonic.co.za/?p=840,
Message to linux-kernel mailing list, 2004-10-26, Torvalds, Linus, 2017-04-25 http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0410.3/1101.html,
2000s, 2000-04
“If an open source product gets good enough, we'll simply take it.”
Financial Times interview (18 April 2006) http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto041820061306424713.
Context: If an open source product gets good enough, we'll simply take it. So the great thing about open source is nobody owns it – a company like Oracle is free to take it for nothing, include it in our products and charge for support, and that's what we'll do. So it is not disruptive at all – you have to find places to add value. Once open source gets good enough, competing with it would be insane. … We don't have to fight open source, we have to exploit open source.
Torvalds, Linus, 2015-01-15, <nowiki>Linus Torvalds on why he isn’t nice: "I don’t care about you"</nowiki>, 2015-01-20 http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/linus-torvalds-on-why-he-isnt-nice-i-dont-care-about-you/,
2010s, 2015
“I tell you, I have never opened anyone’s file ever.”
2014, "GhoshanaPatra with Narendra Modi", 2014
Context: I think this is a very dirty question [asked about Robert Vadra]. On one hand, no one is above the law. Suppose there is an allegation against Narendra Modi, and suppose tomorrow Narendra Modi becomes the Prime Minister, then should the case against him be initiated or not; just because I became the Prime Minister everything be closed. It cannot be like that, right? I am not above anyone. But I am talking about myself here, not the person you asked about, don’t mix it up, I am sure you won’t play the news trader gimmick. I have 14 years to experience of running a government. I tell you, I have never opened anyone’s file ever. It is my opinion that I got involved in all that then I would just have gotten more lost in it and would have been unable to do any good work. This is my personal opinion, I am not telling this as a government policy. I have separated myself from all this in 14 years and gave support only to new positive initiatives. I am not even aware of them, they are old things and must be in progress, the government knows it’s work. We come in for five years, if we start lugging this garbage [e. g., old corruption cases] around then when will we [have time to] do some good work[? ] So it is my opinion that my energies not be wasted in garbage. My energies should be directed towards good constructive work. Five years is very little time, if we get caught elsewhere then how will we do any good for the country. Rest [of] the law [e. g., the judiciary] should take its own course.