* Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-15 08:24:21]: > > Are you afraid that people are just going to go after features > > rather than free software once they've been tempted? so you must > > keep them ignorant. Plus, how does using GPL software educate > > people about the GPL philosophy? Nobody can deny that a VAST > > majority of the "F(/)OSS" community does not understand the difference > > between free and open source software, let alone what GPL-free-as-in-speech > > (for lack of a better term) is all about. All they know is > > free-as-in-beer. Hell, even most of the big linux players don't > > "get it." > > I really wish people would stop using these free analogies. They are > misleading and stupid. > > GPL licensed software = Gratis software (before you point out that some > dictionaries use the word "free" as a synonym... remember in school when > you had to pick the "best option"; that's what this is, the best word to > describe something). > > ISC licensed software = Free software and let me quote some dictionary > entries so that we all know what we are talking about: > - exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a > person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; > unrestricted. > - able to do something at will; at liberty: free to choose. > - exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains, > burdens, etc. (usually fol. by from or of): free from worry; free of > taxes. > - given without consideration of a return or reward: a free offer of > legal advice. > - not subject to special regulations, restrictions, duties, etc.: The > ship was given free passage. > - that may be used by or is open to all: a free market. > > > There is no such thing as free beer. Someone, somewhere paid for > production, distribution, etc etc. This is a stupid concept. > > Free as in speech as it is used has similar issues. > The GPL license is full of legal restrictions and can therefore NOT be > considered free speech. I can talk all day long on how free my license > is (free speech) but it doesn't mean it is true. Where it falls apart > is that the GPL enforces legal restrictions that limit free speech. So > lets call it what it is; GPL software is gratis. > > RMS definitions of free/liberty/freedom etc are contorted to fit his > believe system. They are not legal definitions and worse not even > correct English. Got to love that the non-native speaker has to point > that out. > > Do yourself a favor and stop listening to his stupid rhetoric. >
I realize that you are frustrated with the terms and their definitions. However, if someone is well-versed in the GPL philosophy and rhetoric, it is understood what is meant when I say free and when I say open. I don't see any other good way to discuss it. Certainly in the BSD camp we don't think that the GPL is "free." Yes, it is a legal monstrosity and it limits your rights. I just can't have a coherent conversation with someone all the while inserting that disclaimer every damn time I use a word. However, I have to agree, Stallman's arguments are rhetorical, they do contain equivocations on words like free. Marco, if you can develop a new system of lexicons, I'd be glad to use it. What are you talking about? There is free beer! =) It's a beer that you did not pay for, so for all intents and purposes to you, it is free. I'll buy you one sometime. Hehe. -- Travers Buda
