|FROM ||David Sugar
|SUBJECT ||Re: [hangout] Stallman re: Information Producers Initiative
|From owner-hangout-desteny-at-mrbrklyn.com Sat Dec 8 10:10:32 2001
Received: (from mdom-at-localhost)
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id fB8FAQM01207
for hangout-desteny; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 10:10:26 -0500
Received: from andromeda.sys ([22.214.171.124])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id fB8FAPY01202
for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 10:10:25 -0500
Received: from ostel.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by andromeda.sys (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 6105C1E63A; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 10:12:17 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 10:12:16 -0500
From: David Sugar
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20010914
To: Jon Britton
Subject: Re: [hangout] Stallman re: Information Producers Initiative
References: <3C1061AF.E7678DB2-at-RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <20011207090429.A22739-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com> <20011208100302.B11674-at-breakwindows.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Reply-To: David Sugar
List: New Yorkers Linux Scene
Admin: To unsubscribe send unsubscribename-at-domian.com to hangout-request-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com
It is true the term "free" is overloaded in English and this is
problematic. However "freedom software", which might be closer in
intent, is uglier to express. In some languages, like French and
Spanish, we have seperate terms for free of cost vs free in rights
given, as in gratius vs libre, and the term "Libre Software" vs "Gratius
Software" will often be used in Europe to make this distinction clear.
Jon Britton wrote:
>Not sure if it's entirely relevant to the discussion's political nature,
>but it might be worth pimping my crusade against "free software". No, I
>have nothing against freedom or RMS, its the term "free software" when
>it describes binary-only shareware/freeware available to Linux, I object.
>It seems any time something is given away "free"(beer), and available
>for free(liberty) unix-clones, it is mistakenly labeled free software.
>Obviously, this is not the case, and further yet fuels the fire of the
>average user who still thinks "there's no money to be made in free".
>Instead, "no cost" works just fine. A search for "free" on dictionary.com
>yields 17 definitions, with only one being remotely close to the monetary
>cost of an item...so it isn't exactly an ideal term to begin with. Many of
>us understand the use of computers as an educational tool is way more
>important than making a profit selling software, but if one chooses to sell
>something they've written, they can still give us free software and pay the
>rent at the same time.
>I've seen the "free but not Free" comments all over the place, and maybe its
>just time to leave free software to what it is. Or, maybe, it would be
>better to come up with a new term for the FSF. Maybe the Software Liberation Front.
>Or the People's Liberated Software Movement...or just Liberating Software.
>Or even "Hey we promise not to screw you on this" Software. I'll accept any.
New Yorker Linux Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....