Sean Corfield has an interesting article discussing his views on this whole Java-OpenOffice.org thing. In the article he basically says that the FSF has gone too far in their definition of open source.
Under their definition, there can be no Open Source .NET applications, no Open Source Java applications (and no Open Source ColdFusion applications). No, you can’t be True Open Source(tm) if your code relies on non-free, non-Open Source software to run!
I definitly agree with him on this one. I program in Java and I would like to believe that I can develop and release open source software like everyone else. According to the FSF, I can not because that software would relie on a closed source language and runtime environment. Does this really make any sense?
ZDNet has a similar article detailing some of the claims made by the FSF against the Yankee group for some of the benchmark studies they have done. Basically the FSF have said that the studies were paid for by Microsoft and that is why they are critical of Linux. The real point of the article is the outright aggresiveness of some of the members against anyone who says anything negative about linux.
It is getting rought out there folks, you say anything negative about linux and you are going to get slammed for it by FSF zealots. I have seen it happen at JavaLobby.org and now we are seeing it happen with OpenOffice.org and with other websites.
I thought open software and linux was about choice? Apparently the only choice now is the choice to choose linux or be evil. Some choice.