Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

On 08/09/11 12:08, Sam Geeraerts wrote:

Joshua Ismael Haase Hernández wrote:

I think we should consider using the term «libre software»
wich is unambiguous.


It has been considered, ref. 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.




This is what it says:
Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their 
own. We've looked at many that people have suggested, but none is so 
clearly “right” that switching to it would be a good idea. (For 
instance, in some contexts the French and Spanish word “libre” works 
well, but people in India do not recognize it at all.) Every proposed 
replacement for “free software” has some kind of semantic problem—and 
this includes “open source software.”




What about positioning Software Freedom”?

--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero


"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Sam Geeraerts]

Joshua Ismael Haase Hernández wrote:

I think we should consider using the term «libre software»
wich is unambiguous.


It has been considered, ref. 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

On 07/09/11 20:27, Joshua Ismael Haase Hernández wrote:

I think we should consider using the term «libre software»
wich is unambiguous.



I think it is necessary in english but needless in other languages 
because the meaning is clearer.


Advocating the word is very important because it takes the 15 minute 
talk down to a one word expression. If there are unceirtainties they can 
be explained. Promoting the term other people promote advocates their 
values (OSI's) and not ours (FSF's).



--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero


"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Joshua Ismael Haase Hernández]

I think we should consider using the term «libre software»
wich is unambiguous.

2011/8/21 Henry Jensen 

> Hello Sam,
>
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:00:22 +0200
> Sam Geeraerts  wrote:
>
> > In any case, it's clear that using the term "free software" over "open
> > source" should be encouraged within FSDG distro communities. I think
> > it's not necessary to make an FSDG rule for this, but that it's an
> > indicator of a community's strength.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by "a community's strength."
>
> I agree that it is good to encourage the term "free software" over
> "open source". But I still don't think that this is a crucial point.
>
> Like you said, many say "open source" when they mean "free software".
> I admit, sometimes I use the term "open source" as well in discussions
> when I speak with people who are unfamiliar with free software -
> because the term "open source" is more known than "free software" and
> "free software" is confused with "Freeware" very often. Often there is
> simply not enough time to explain the difference between "Freeware" and
> "free software". What matters is the message that is transmitted.
>
> For example, if I tell someone who is unfamiliar with free software
> "With open source software you have the freedom to use and to modify
> the software, and  additionally to redistribute the software and your
> modifications. That's why I recommend to use it" it should be clear
> what I mean. If I would use the term "free software" instead and the
> person confuses it with "Freeware" this would lead to false conclusion.
> This example isn't out of the blue, it really happened once, when
> someone redistributed a "Freeware" program, which was forbidden by the
> license of that proprietary program. "But you said, that I can ..." Bad
> mistake.
>
> I prefer the term "free software" as well, and as I told before, I am
> willing to correct the term "open source" in our wiki if and when I
> encounter it. But as long as the criteria of the FSDG are met (i. e. no
> non-free software is recommended) I don't see a reason to establish
> some kind of authentic language.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Henry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

On 07/09/11 04:09, Henry Jensen wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:04:04 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:



This is exactly what FSFE representatives are telling.

No. The previous expressions said there was no diference between
opensource and the Free Software movement. This expresses they are diferent.

No, FSFE never said that there is no difference between "Open Source
Movement" and the Free Software movement. It is crucial to distinct
between the terms and the movement. They said that the terms refer to
the same thing, but to different aspects.



These are your words:

BTW: I recently had a discussion on this one with some people from the
Free Software Foundation Europe, the FSF's sister organization in
Europe. Many people at the FSFE have a different point of view on this.

They prefer the term "free software" as well, but they believe that
"open source" and "free software" is the same and they don't think that
both "free software" and "open source" community have different goals.
So "free software" and "open source" are considered as the same
community at the FSFE. You see, the view on this topic is not
homogeneous in the Free Software Community itself.





If you leave aside an ethical position, you are rejecting its value. It
is just a diplomatic way of saying the same thing.

No, it is something very different. Many christian organizations
provide help and care in other countries, even in islamic countries.
They act practical (e. g. provide food and medical care) but leave
aside christian ethical values (such as evangelize in the country).
That doesn't mean that they reject Christianity.



They do not leave it aside. It is their main concern. But they channel 
it through the trust that their collaboration brings among their 
"evangelized".



Yes. Some people defend freedom but use the term opensource because they
have not understood what opensource implies.

"Open Source" implies only that the source code is available, nothing
else. It is a pure technical term with no ethical value. Some people
seem to think that "open source" in fact has ethical values, just
opposite ethical values from the free software movement. That is simply
not true.


Opensource implies that the source code is available but open source 
proponents often urge people to use the license that most fits their 
technical ends ond not their global ends. This often gives the false 
asumtion of being practical.



There are people who reject free software values. They may even use
GNU/Linux (often without knowing it), but they reject software
freedom. But this people aren't calling themselves "open source". On
the contrary, they even reject the term "Open Source", they refer to
Software Freedom as "Open Source Ideology". To them "Free Software" and
"Open Source" indeed are the same thing. I think that those people are
confused with "open source supporters".



There are those cases too.


As a consequence FSFE says: We think, that people who use the term
"open source" are most likely can be "converted" to be free software
supporters, because they are just using the wrong term and don't know
enough about the ethical values.


This is possible but seldom true.

I did not find that text on fsfe.org. Will you please cite the source?

It is a logical conclusion, based on the FSFE documents. It is also
what the FSFE people are saying, including the FSFE president who I
spoke to last week. There was no objection to this at the FSFE meeting
I attended.



This is a matter I cannot discuss now because it is being talked about 
between the FSFs. We will get an official position soon.



It is equally my experience. Most people that have come to free software
for the technical values do not value freedom.

That is not my experience. Most people who made a conscious technical
decision for "open source" can be told that free software is more than
technical advantage, that it also include ethical values. In fact, most
people come to free software for technical reasons in the first place.
I myself switched to GNU/Linux over 12 years ago because of the
technical disadvantages of the proprietary system I used before and
learned about software freedom later.



It is not common that information technology people can see the ethical 
issue because most often we like the technical aspects. It is rather an 
uncommon happening. People in search of ethics will usually agree with 
freedom. It is common among IT people that defend freedom to come to the 
ethics but most aren't in that group. That is the reason of the greater 
advancement of opensource among IT profesionals.



Like I said, there are some people who are using GNU/Linux more or less
"by accident". This people won't mind to switch back to a proprietary
system if it becomes technical better. I have met such people before,
they used to be GNU/Linux users but then switched to a proprietary
system made by Apple, because they found it to be technical superior.
At no time they identified themselves 

[GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[JLM]

 
> That is not my experience. Most people who made a conscious
> technical decision for "open source" can be told that free software
> is more than technical advantage, that it also include ethical values.
> In fact, most people come to free software for technical reasons in the
> first place. I myself switched to GNU/Linux over 12 years ago because of
> the technical disadvantages of the proprietary system I used before and
> learned about software freedom later.

One thing the Free Software movement should realize is that the theoretical 
future that RMS talked about years ago, is now the end users reality (although 
perhaps to a lesser degree) We now have iPhone devices where Apple decides what 
applications people get to use. We have Kindle devices where Amazon decides 
what you can read, and can even make your books disappear is some lawyers 
decide you don't have the right to read it, IE George Orwell's books. We have 
Microsoft building in the ability to force updates onto your computers, even if 
you've told it not to install any updates. These freedom issues are now things 
the end users can understand and may have experienced. 

I no longer have to make an abstract ethical argument on why I would pick free 
software. It's simple, I use free software because I don't want corporation or 
lawyers decides what programs I run or content I view on my computer, no more 
than I would want the Government telling me, and the only technical way to 
insure that is by using 100% free software on my systems.

Open Source is a development model targeted at groups and corporation. Free 
Software is a software model targeted at users and developers. When someone 
says, "I'm a fan of open source" I think one should open a dialog with them and 
find out what they like about it. Very likely they may say things where we can 
say, "That sounds more like Free Software Movement than Open Source, do you 
know about the difference?" And then talk about how Free Software ensures that 
the software you are using gives you the freedom, but for that to work, it 
requires everyone to respect each other's freedom.

-Jason

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:04:04 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:


> > This is exactly what FSFE representatives are telling.
> 
> No. The previous expressions said there was no diference between 
> opensource and the Free Software movement. This expresses they are diferent.

No, FSFE never said that there is no difference between "Open Source
Movement" and the Free Software movement. It is crucial to distinct
between the terms and the movement. They said that the terms refer to
the same thing, but to different aspects.

> If you leave aside an ethical position, you are rejecting its value. It 
> is just a diplomatic way of saying the same thing.

No, it is something very different. Many christian organizations
provide help and care in other countries, even in islamic countries.
They act practical (e. g. provide food and medical care) but leave
aside christian ethical values (such as evangelize in the country).
That doesn't mean that they reject Christianity.

> Yes. Some people defend freedom but use the term opensource because they 
> have not understood what opensource implies. 

"Open Source" implies only that the source code is available, nothing
else. It is a pure technical term with no ethical value. Some people
seem to think that "open source" in fact has ethical values, just
opposite ethical values from the free software movement. That is simply
not true.

There are people who reject free software values. They may even use
GNU/Linux (often without knowing it), but they reject software
freedom. But this people aren't calling themselves "open source". On
the contrary, they even reject the term "Open Source", they refer to
Software Freedom as "Open Source Ideology". To them "Free Software" and
"Open Source" indeed are the same thing. I think that those people are
confused with "open source supporters".
 
> > As a consequence FSFE says: We think, that people who use the term
> > "open source" are most likely can be "converted" to be free software
> > supporters, because they are just using the wrong term and don't know
> > enough about the ethical values.
> >
> 
> This is possible but seldom true.
> 
> I did not find that text on fsfe.org. Will you please cite the source? 

It is a logical conclusion, based on the FSFE documents. It is also
what the FSFE people are saying, including the FSFE president who I
spoke to last week. There was no objection to this at the FSFE meeting
I attended.

> It is equally my experience. Most people that have come to free software 
> for the technical values do not value freedom. 

That is not my experience. Most people who made a conscious technical
decision for "open source" can be told that free software is more than
technical advantage, that it also include ethical values. In fact, most
people come to free software for technical reasons in the first place.
I myself switched to GNU/Linux over 12 years ago because of the
technical disadvantages of the proprietary system I used before and
learned about software freedom later.

Like I said, there are some people who are using GNU/Linux more or less
"by accident". This people won't mind to switch back to a proprietary
system if it becomes technical better. I have met such people before,
they used to be GNU/Linux users but then switched to a proprietary
system made by Apple, because they found it to be technical superior.
At no time they identified themselves as "open source supporters". 
This aren't "open source" people, because they even rejected the term
"open source". 

We shouldn't accuse people who are using the term "open source" to be
against software freedom and as such be enemies of software freedom,
because that wouldn't do justice to them.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

On 06/09/11 13:23, Henry Jensen wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:36:23 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:


I suggest you regard official FSFE's positions from their website in:
https://fsfe.org/about/basics/freesoftware
https://fsfe.org/documents/whyfs-howto
And disregard previous statements from FSFE officers that present very
different positions from those.

I don't see different positions between those documents and the
previous statements. The FSFE says (from
https://fsfe.org/about/basics/freesoftware.en.html)

"The goal was to seek fast commercialisation of Free Software and
acceptance of Free Software by the companies and venture capitalists of
the booming new economy. As a means to this end, they made a conscious
decision to leave aside all long-term issues (such as philosophy,
ethics and social effects) related to Free Software, feeling these
posed obstacles in the way of rapid acceptance by economy. They
proposed to focus on technical advantages only

Often used in good faith by people who refer to what Free Software
stands for, the term "Open Source" - originally defined to mean the
same thing as Free Software in terms of licenses and implementation -
has seen inflationary usage. "

This is exactly what FSFE representatives are telling.


No. The previous expressions said there was no diference between 
opensource and the Free Software movement. This expresses they are diferent.



Now the "FSF version" from
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

"In 1998, a part of the free software community splintered off and
began campaigning in the name of “open source.” The term was originally
proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free
software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical views quite
different from those of the free software movement.

Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing
campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives
by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising
issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other
supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and
social values."

I hope you notice the difference between those views. FSFE says, open
source supporters made a tactical decision to leave aside ethical
values. FSF says they rejected the ethical values. There is a
difference between "leaving aside" (meaning: you don't say, but you
still agree silently with a view) and "reject" (meaning: you are
opposed to a view).


If you leave aside an ethical position, you are rejecting its value. It 
is just a diplomatic way of saying the same thing.



Additionally FSFE says that "open Source" is "often
used in good faith(!) by people who refer to what Free Software stands
for".
Yes. Some people defend freedom but use the term opensource because they 
have not understood what opensource implies. Nevertheless, you can 
quickly find if they defend freedom or not by asking them if they think 
they should avoid a technically good software because its license is 
restrictive.



As a consequence FSFE says: We think, that people who use the term
"open source" are most likely can be "converted" to be free software
supporters, because they are just using the wrong term and don't know
enough about the ethical values.



This is possible but seldom true.

I did not find that text on fsfe.org. Will you please cite the source? 
Are you citing expressions made in this list or elsewhere by FSFE officials?



FSF says: We gave up on "open source" supporters, because they reject
our ideas and have very different ideas.




It is equally my experience. Most people that have come to free software 
for the technical values do not value freedom. Most people that have 
come to free software for the ethical values don't mind to give up 
functionality in exchange for freedom. It is better to search for 
supporters that value freedom rather than functionality. We could find 
supporters among people that value functionality but they would most 
likely be less. It is better to put our work to something that produces 
better results.


--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero


"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:36:23 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:

> I suggest you regard official FSFE's positions from their website in:
> https://fsfe.org/about/basics/freesoftware
> https://fsfe.org/documents/whyfs-howto
> And disregard previous statements from FSFE officers that present very 
> different positions from those.

I don't see different positions between those documents and the
previous statements. The FSFE says (from
https://fsfe.org/about/basics/freesoftware.en.html)

"The goal was to seek fast commercialisation of Free Software and
acceptance of Free Software by the companies and venture capitalists of
the booming new economy. As a means to this end, they made a conscious
decision to leave aside all long-term issues (such as philosophy,
ethics and social effects) related to Free Software, feeling these
posed obstacles in the way of rapid acceptance by economy. They
proposed to focus on technical advantages only

Often used in good faith by people who refer to what Free Software
stands for, the term "Open Source" - originally defined to mean the
same thing as Free Software in terms of licenses and implementation -
has seen inflationary usage. "

This is exactly what FSFE representatives are telling.

Now the "FSF version" from
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

"In 1998, a part of the free software community splintered off and
began campaigning in the name of “open source.” The term was originally
proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free
software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical views quite
different from those of the free software movement.

Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing
campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives
by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising
issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other
supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and
social values."

I hope you notice the difference between those views. FSFE says, open
source supporters made a tactical decision to leave aside ethical
values. FSF says they rejected the ethical values. There is a
difference between "leaving aside" (meaning: you don't say, but you
still agree silently with a view) and "reject" (meaning: you are
opposed to a view). Additionally FSFE says that "open Source" is "often
used in good faith(!) by people who refer to what Free Software stands
for". 

As a consequence FSFE says: We think, that people who use the term
"open source" are most likely can be "converted" to be free software
supporters, because they are just using the wrong term and don't know
enough about the ethical values.

FSF says: We gave up on "open source" supporters, because they reject
our ideas and have very different ideas.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

On 30/08/11 14:44, Henry Jensen wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:55:45 +0100
Michael Dorrington  wrote:


I am in the UK and I understand the difference so it isn't only America.
And I am fairly sure that LibrePlanet Italia understands the difference
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/LibrePlanetItalia . The terms are only
interchangeable by people/groups who don't understand or want to
purposefully confuse them. Have a (re-)read of the following:

I know and read this documents. I only try to understand why there are
so different views about this issues in the free software movement,
namely FSF and FSFE (at least here in Germany), which is a little
irritating.


I suggest you regard official FSFE's positions from their website in:
https://fsfe.org/about/basics/freesoftware
https://fsfe.org/documents/whyfs-howto
And disregard previous statements from FSFE officers that present very 
different positions from those.


--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero


"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

On 30/08/11 14:44, Henry Jensen wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:55:45 +0100
Michael Dorrington  wrote:


I am in the UK and I understand the difference so it isn't only America.
And I am fairly sure that LibrePlanet Italia understands the difference
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/LibrePlanetItalia . The terms are only
interchangeable by people/groups who don't understand or want to
purposefully confuse them. Have a (re-)read of the following:

I know and read this documents. I only try to understand why there are
so different views about this issues in the free software movement,
namely FSF and FSFE (at least here in Germany), which is a little
irritating.


It is for all of us. FSFE and FSF are now discussing the issue. I had 
forwarded a private message from FSFLA list for which I apologize. For 
the importance of the issue I totolly forgot it was a private list. I 
hope we soon get an official stament from FSFE where they acknowledge 
the diference between the two movements and conciliating the real 
positions of both FSFs.



As I said, I hope to discuss it tomorrow with the president with the
FSFE, and I am curious what results the talks of Richard Stallman with the
FSFE will have.


This is a good idea. :-) Richard sees the issue very clearly.

--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero


"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Michael Dorrington]

On 30/08/11 20:44, Henry Jensen wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:55:45 +0100
> Michael Dorrington  wrote:
> 
>> I am in the UK and I understand the difference so it isn't only America.
>> And I am fairly sure that LibrePlanet Italia understands the difference
>> http://libreplanet.org/wiki/LibrePlanetItalia . The terms are only
>> interchangeable by people/groups who don't understand or want to
>> purposefully confuse them. Have a (re-)read of the following:
> 
> I know and read this documents. I only try to understand why there are
> so different views about this issues in the free software movement,
> namely FSF and FSFE (at least here in Germany), which is a little
> irritating.

There are not different views about this issue in the free software
movement.

Regards,
Mike.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

Dear Henry Jensen:

I find that your misunderstanding is because the permanent opensource 
position to minimize our position which has made many people believe 
that we just want to fight over non trascendental issues. It is an 
important issue for us and if we are to work together with open source, 
the first step is that they recognize we do not have the same values as 
they do but that we can collaborate. We understand their position but 
they do not understand ours. I beleive FSFE has to define if they agree 
with FSF or OSI.


Maybe Richard Stallman's position in reply to Karsten Gerloff (president 
of FSFE) will show you what is the position of FSF.


On 31/08/11 08:02, Richard Stallman wrote:

Please stop telling people that free software is another name
for open source!

 From our point of view, "Open Source Software" and "Free Software" are
 just two different names for the same thing, with the names (and the
 people who use them) having a focus on different aspects.

That's not a point of view, it is just a mistake.  It isn't true, and
it undermines our efforts to teach people where we stand.

 This doesn't sound so different from a statement by Richard on
 November 17, 2008:

"Free software" and "open source" are the names of two different
political viewpoints within the free software community - the
community built by the free software movement.

You seem to have got my meaning 180 degrees wrong.  I did not say they
are the same -- quite the contrary, I said they are "two different
political viewpoints".

I could have said "opposing political viewpoints", but I was trying
to be gentle about it, following your advice.

Sometimes I say they are "political parties", because free software
and open source are analogous to political parties that disagree on
basic issues.

"Green" and "Democratic" are two political camps in the US.  Does that
mean they are two names for the same country?  No, neither one is a
name for the country.  Each one is the name of a party.  Likewise,
"free software" is the name of one party, and "open source" is the
name of another party.  These two parties disagree about "What's this
all about?"

Do you follow?


Thus far I've explained how these two are different.  Now to turn to
strategy: here's why it is vital to show people they are different.

If you go around saying "Green and Democratic are the same thing", you
would do the Green Party tremendous damage.  Likewise, saying that
free software and open source are the same thing does the Free
Software Movement tremendous damage.

The main point we try to communicate people is "Insist on freedom in
your software".  The open source camp rejects that.  They outnumber
us; everyone in our community has heard their views.  And everyone in
our community tends to assume we share those views.  And they will
keep assuming this until we stand in front of them and shout:

   NO we do NOT agree with the "open source" views you have heard!!!
   This is something DIFFERENT -- VERY DEEPLY different!!!

Some people need this several times before they actually believe
we are different from open source.

Please do not tell them we are the same as open source.  That works
against our efforts.

Since you think your statement was similar to mine,

"Free software" and "open source" are the names of two different
political viewpoints within the free software community - the
community built by the free software movement.

how about saying precisely that?  It tells people what we need them to
know, about the difference.



On 31/08/11 08:02, Richard Stallman wrote:

 If we want to bring people over to our point
 of view, it is important to bridge the gap, rather than to open it
 further.

In general we can't bring confirmed open source supporters to our
side; they won't change their stand.  The people we can convince are
the people who have not yet made up their minds.

In order to win them over, we have to show them there is a choice for
them to make.  We have to show that we stand for something _different_
from the open source ideas that they hear from so many others.  In my
experience, that works.

I don't insist you focus on telling people about this difference.  But
stop trying to negate the efforts of those of us who do.




--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero


"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Michael Dorrington]

On 28/08/11 21:19, Henry Jensen wrote:
> Hi Quiliro,
> 
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:11:51 -0500
> Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:
> 
>> Richard said he is discussing this issue with FSFE. FSF does not support 
>> that position. In fact, FSF regards opensource software as something 
>> good but the opensource ideas as bad. It sounds contradictory but it 
>> isn't because some of what they do agrees with what we do but not all so 
>> the terms are not interchangeable.
> 
> Maybe things are a little different in America, but here in Europe the
> terms are indeed interchangeable. Here is no such thing like a distinct
> "open source movement". I never met an "open source activist" who said
> "I am pro open source, but against free software" or vice versa.
> Meanwhile I read about the history of the term "open source",
> foundation of the OSI and the "schism" between "open source" and "free
> software". Indeed I think, that this was a local american issue. It had
> no effect here, because at the time it happended there was
> practically no free software community in existence over here.

I am in the UK and I understand the difference so it isn't only America.
And I am fairly sure that LibrePlanet Italia understands the difference
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/LibrePlanetItalia . The terms are only
interchangeable by people/groups who don't understand or want to
purposefully confuse them. Have a (re-)read of the following:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
http://opensource.org/history (particular the bit which says "dump the
moralizing")

Regards,
Mike.
Chair of Manchester Free Software.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:55:45 +0100
Michael Dorrington  wrote:

> I am in the UK and I understand the difference so it isn't only America.
> And I am fairly sure that LibrePlanet Italia understands the difference
> http://libreplanet.org/wiki/LibrePlanetItalia . The terms are only
> interchangeable by people/groups who don't understand or want to
> purposefully confuse them. Have a (re-)read of the following:

I know and read this documents. I only try to understand why there are
so different views about this issues in the free software movement,
namely FSF and FSFE (at least here in Germany), which is a little
irritating.

As I said, I hope to discuss it tomorrow with the president with the
FSFE, and I am curious what results the talks of Richard Stallman with the
FSFE will have.

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hi Quiliro,

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:11:51 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:

> Richard said he is discussing this issue with FSFE. FSF does not support 
> that position. In fact, FSF regards opensource software as something 
> good but the opensource ideas as bad. It sounds contradictory but it 
> isn't because some of what they do agrees with what we do but not all so 
> the terms are not interchangeable.

Maybe things are a little different in America, but here in Europe the
terms are indeed interchangeable. Here is no such thing like a distinct
"open source movement". I never met an "open source activist" who said
"I am pro open source, but against free software" or vice versa.
Meanwhile I read about the history of the term "open source",
foundation of the OSI and the "schism" between "open source" and "free
software". Indeed I think, that this was a local american issue. It had
no effect here, because at the time it happended there was
practically no free software community in existence over here.

Regardless of this I still prefer "free software" because the term
"open source" is abused in some cases and therefore not clear. But I
don't see "open source" as an distinct movement. Another local example:
In a few month there will be a local exhibition called "OpenRheinRuhr",
see http://openrheinruhr.de/. The preamble says:

"Die OpenRheinRuhr ist eine Messe mit Kongress rund um das Thema "Freie
Software"." Translation:
"OpenRheinRuhr is an exhibition with a congress on the topic "free
software"." The FSFE participates at that exhibition. (Side note: I
participate in the call for papers and want to speak about Linux Libre.)

> > a member who uses the
> > term "open source" can always refer to the FSFE and say "Hey, the FSFE
> > said, it is okay when I say "open source"". Since 90 percent of our
> > community is living in Europe that would be a reasonable point and one
> > could hardly argue against that.
> 
> Please get an official written statement from FSFE stating that. It 
> would clear up things for all of us.

I think I linked such a statement from Matthias Kirschner earlier. He is
Fellowship Coordinator and the Coordinator of the German team of the
FSFE, so in a sense he is the local authority for the FSFE in Germany
and as such authorized to make official statements.

Source:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-de/2010-December/002883.html
Matthias Kirschner wrote in german (translation follows):

"Richard hat in letzter Zeit soweit ich gesehen habe nicht mehr von zwei
unterschiedlichen Gemeinschaften gesprochen. Die FSFE hat dies nicht
gemacht. Freie Software und Open Source sind Begriffe für ein und die
selbe Sache. Wir verwenden den Begriff Freie Software
http://www.fsfe.org/campaigns/whyfs/whyfs.de.html, aber wir sehen Leute
die andere Begriffe verwenden nicht außerhalb unserer Gemeinschaft.
[...]
Die FSFE empfiehlt, wie oben schon geschrieben, selbst zu denken.
Verwende entweder Freie Software oder Open Source, was du meinst, was
besser ist. Hatte ja ganz oben geschrieben, dass wir keine Strategien
vorschreiben wollen. Wenn jemand der Ansicht ist, dass es er mit dem
Begriff "Open Source" Freie Software besser erklären kann, dann soll er
das tun."

English Translation:

"Richard [Stallman], as I saw it, didn't speak about two different
communities in the last time. The FSFE didn't do it. Free Software and
Open Source are terms for the one and same thing. We use the term free
software, http://www.fsfe.org/campaigns/whyfs/whyfs.de.html, but we
don't see people who use other terms outside our community"
[...]
The FSFE recommends to think yourself. Use [the term] free software or
open source, whatever you think is better. [...] we don't dictate
strategies. If someone thinks that he can explain free software better
with the term open source then he should do it."

If I'm lucky I will have the opportunity to meet Karsten Gerloff,
President of the FSFE (the whole FSFE, not just Germany) at Wednesday
and ask him about this matter.

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

On 20/08/11 04:52, Henry Jensen wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:03:48 +
Ineiev  wrote:


Anyway, I think this discussion is a little off-topic on this list.

It is being discussed whether a free distribution may want to represent itself
as Open Source.

I think there is a misunderstanding. ConnochaetOS, as far as I as the
maintainer can stand for it, represents itself explicitly as Free
Software.

However, I am not alone and there are people who help the project,
especially in the forum by answering questions from  users and doing
some documentation in the wiki. They feel obligated to free software.
But they may use sometimes wordings that may look unfortunate by some
other people in the Free Software Community.

This is how we came here. Now, there are some points that should be
clarified:

1. The Free System Distribution Guidelines doesn't require to use or to
avoid explicit wordings. It requires that a free distro "must take care
not to recommend nonfree software." The FSDG covers content of a free
distros documentation, but there is no prescribed terminology. If I am
mistaken, please correct me.


If we use terminology that promotes the ideas of people that do not 
value freedom, we promote their ideas and not ours. Please consider that.



2. In the explicit case it is discussed if it is okay, if some members
of a free distro use the term "open source" in its documentation. I had
a discussion with a representative of the FSFE about this matter, and
the FSFEs summarized point of view is "We prefer the term "free
software", but if you say "open source" it is fine with us, because it
is the same thing". So, from the FSFEs point of view there should be no
problem.



Richard said he is discussing this issue with FSFE. FSF does not support 
that position. In fact, FSF regards opensource software as something 
good but the opensource ideas as bad. It sounds contradictory but it 
isn't because some of what they do agrees with what we do but not all so 
the terms are not interchangeable.



I myself see this matter a little more severe. I think the term "free
software" should be used, and I correct wordings occasionally. But
since many new users are involved and the community is growing I can't
control every sentence they write. What's more: In a hypothetical
discussion in our community about this issue, a member who uses the
term "open source" can always refer to the FSFE and say "Hey, the FSFE
said, it is okay when I say "open source"". Since 90 percent of our
community is living in Europe that would be a reasonable point and one
could hardly argue against that.


Please get an official written statement from FSFE stating that. It 
would clear up things for all of us.

Regards,

Henry



Great work!

--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero


"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

On 23/08/11 03:42, Henry Jensen wrote:

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:59:46 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:


At http://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang/ the FSF even endorses
FreeBSD, which is known to have proprietary software in their ports.
(personally I think, FreeBSD shouldn't be listed there. If they must
list a BSD system it should be OpenBSD, which has, in contrast to
FreeBSD, an explicit free software agenda).


I don't see FreeBSD as an endorsed free OS. Will you please provide
the link to report that bug?

Possibly they are refering to its kernel which I beleive is free
http://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang/freebsd . Nevertheless, it
shouldn't be endoresed because it promotes non free software.

The naming situation in BSD is not like the situation in GNU/Linux.
"FreeBSD"is the whole system, kernel + userland. The kernel alone is
just called "the FreeBSD kernel". And even if they referred only to the
kernel, as far as I know the situation with non-free blobs in the
FreeBSD kernel is even worse than with the Linux Kernel.





I agree. It should not be mentioned as endorsed. A comment should be 
included as with other non-free distros.


--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero


"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:59:46 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:

> >> At http://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang/ the FSF even endorses
> >> FreeBSD, which is known to have proprietary software in their ports.
> >> (personally I think, FreeBSD shouldn't be listed there. If they must
> >> list a BSD system it should be OpenBSD, which has, in contrast to
> >> FreeBSD, an explicit free software agenda).
> >>
> >
> > I don't see FreeBSD as an endorsed free OS. Will you please provide 
> > the link to report that bug?
> 
> Possibly they are refering to its kernel which I beleive is free 
> http://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang/freebsd . Nevertheless, it 
> shouldn't be endoresed because it promotes non free software.

The naming situation in BSD is not like the situation in GNU/Linux.
"FreeBSD"is the whole system, kernel + userland. The kernel alone is
just called "the FreeBSD kernel". And even if they referred only to the
kernel, as far as I know the situation with non-free blobs in the
FreeBSD kernel is even worse than with the Linux Kernel.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

At http://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang/ the FSF even endorses
FreeBSD, which is known to have proprietary software in their ports.
(personally I think, FreeBSD shouldn't be listed there. If they must
list a BSD system it should be OpenBSD, which has, in contrast to
FreeBSD, an explicit free software agenda).



I don't see FreeBSD as an endorsed free OS. Will you please provide 
the link to report that bug?


Possibly they are refering to its kernel which I beleive is free 
http://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang/freebsd . Nevertheless, it 
shouldn't be endoresed because it promotes non free software.


--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero


"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

On 22/08/11 16:01, Henry Jensen wrote:

Hello Quiliro,



Hi :-)

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:19:50 -0500

Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:


It is OK to use the terms in a positive way but not to be distracted
from the issue of freedom. A position more according to FSF and in the
positive sense as you propose would be: "Use ONLY free software to be in
control of your computer".

Using only free software is the ideal situation, the goal that have to
be reached. But you can't reach people if you claim you possess the
absolute truth and all others do not. So one must lead people towards
free software carefully, one step at a time.


Going one step ot a time is ok. Saying something one does not defend 
just to have the other people happy is not the same as going one step at 
a time.


Expressing a person's position is in no way saying it is the absolute 
truth. It is saying it is that person's position. The person that does 
not accept another's position is the one that thinks that they have the 
absolute truth.

If someone told you he wanted to replace, let's say, MS Office with
Libre Office on his proprietary system, would you assist him in
installing it?


Of course!


Or would you decline and say "first you must run a
completely free system like Trisquel, and then I help you"?



It depends. If I could pull it off, of course I would opt for that. If I 
think that my possibilities for acheiving that would be better without 
imposing a free distro I would opt for the other solution but in neither 
case would install non-free software.



The FSF supports installing software on proprietary system as a first
step, see http://www.fsf.org/working-together/moving/windows/


Good stategy!


At http://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang/ the FSF even endorses
FreeBSD, which is known to have proprietary software in their ports.
(personally I think, FreeBSD shouldn't be listed there. If they must
list a BSD system it should be OpenBSD, which has, in contrast to
FreeBSD, an explicit free software agenda).



I don't see FreeBSD as an endorsed free OS. Will you please provide the 
link to report that bug?



What I want to say with that is, that the FSF is more diverse then you
perhaps know. Their argumentation is quite diverse as well. Many
aspects speak for free software, ethical, technological, economical,
security reasons and so on. Why should one concentrate only on one
line of argument? If I can't someone convince with the "software
freedom" argument, why shouldn't I try the "security" argument (and
frankly, I have been more successful with the security argument in the
past). The FSF uses such "technical" arguments as well.



I do not see diversity but a very clear position of the FSF. Diverse 
might be the opinions but there is a consensus on Free Software 
Foundation on standpoints. It is not so clear for people that focus on 
the tecnical specs. That is why it is important to get the freedom point 
clear even though the technical point convinces them. The best strategy 
is to show that the technical advantages are a direct efect of freedom 
and not the other way around.


When people say free software is better because it has no viruses, 
everything is lost. Even though it is true and easy to convince that 
way, in the long run those people are not going to defend freedom but 
functionalities. If on the other hand, we show that thanks to freedom we 
CAN make a better system, those people will feel empowered by free 
software and use the better software and then develop the better 
software where there isn't one.



Freedom takes sacrifice.

George W. Bush, 2005, about the war in Iraq

You cannot compare searching for freedom with attacking another country
and killing people. I do not propose hurting anybody or killing people
for the sake of freedom. That is contradictory. Please do not use that
type of camparison. It makes me feel you think that I am equal to that
terrible person. It is for me as if I would compare you to Hitler.

My apologies, I don't wanted to compare you with Bush.


Thank you.


I wanted to show
where a view that claims to be the absolute truth can lead. You compared
proprietary software with hunger and death. I think proprietary
software is wrong, but I wouldn't compare it with scourges of humanity.
Like a Christian who may think that Paganism is wrong, or a Socialist
that Capitalism is wrong. They try to change it, but they
certainly don't have an agenda to eradicate it (disregarding small
extreme factions).


There are no absolute truths unless you are the one and only God (if 
such would exist). Hunger and death are bad. They are not as bad as non 
free software but I really consider they are closely interlinked with 
monopolies. (Hunger is an effect of the monsopoly of food and death is 
the monopoly of weapons.) And monopolies are closely linked with non 
free software. They collaborate directly or indirectly as the BLAG 
people might understand better than me. So I wouldn't be far from off.



T

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hello Quiliro,

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:19:50 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:

> It is OK to use the terms in a positive way but not to be distracted 
> from the issue of freedom. A position more according to FSF and in the 
> positive sense as you propose would be: "Use ONLY free software to be in 
> control of your computer".

Using only free software is the ideal situation, the goal that have to
be reached. But you can't reach people if you claim you possess the
absolute truth and all others do not. So one must lead people towards
free software carefully, one step at a time.

If someone told you he wanted to replace, let's say, MS Office with
Libre Office on his proprietary system, would you assist him in
installing it? Or would you decline and say "first you must run a
completely free system like Trisquel, and then I help you"?

The FSF supports installing software on proprietary system as a first
step, see http://www.fsf.org/working-together/moving/windows/

At http://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang/ the FSF even endorses
FreeBSD, which is known to have proprietary software in their ports.
(personally I think, FreeBSD shouldn't be listed there. If they must
list a BSD system it should be OpenBSD, which has, in contrast to
FreeBSD, an explicit free software agenda).

What I want to say with that is, that the FSF is more diverse then you
perhaps know. Their argumentation is quite diverse as well. Many
aspects speak for free software, ethical, technological, economical,
security reasons and so on. Why should one concentrate only on one
line of argument? If I can't someone convince with the "software
freedom" argument, why shouldn't I try the "security" argument (and
frankly, I have been more successful with the security argument in the
past). The FSF uses such "technical" arguments as well.
 
> >> Freedom takes sacrifice.
> > George W. Bush, 2005, about the war in Iraq
> 
> You cannot compare searching for freedom with attacking another country 
> and killing people. I do not propose hurting anybody or killing people 
> for the sake of freedom. That is contradictory. Please do not use that 
> type of camparison. It makes me feel you think that I am equal to that 
> terrible person. It is for me as if I would compare you to Hitler.

My apologies, I don't wanted to compare you with Bush. I wanted to show
where a view that claims to be the absolute truth can lead. You compared
proprietary software with hunger and death. I think proprietary
software is wrong, but I wouldn't compare it with scourges of humanity.
Like a Christian who may think that Paganism is wrong, or a Socialist
that Capitalism is wrong. They try to change it, but they
certainly don't have an agenda to eradicate it (disregarding small
extreme factions).

The problem is, if you say, that a certain philosophy or idea is so
evil as hunger and death you make the first step in spreading hatred.
Not only towards that philosophy or idea but to the people who stand
for it as well. The next person who hear you say, that a philosophy or
an idea is so evil, may come to the conclusion that the people who
are standing for this idea are evil as well and should be punished.
Before you know it there will be hatred against other people, with all
its consequences. Spreading hatred is always wrong, no matter for which
cause.

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

On 22/08/11 09:48, Henry Jensen wrote:

Hi Quiliro,

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:57:10 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:



I don't see where the problem is to erradicate
things that do bad such as hunger, infant death and user subjugating
software.

The problem is the attitude. I can propagate my message in a positive
style ("Use free software to be in control of your computer") or in a
negative style ("Don't use proprietary software, it subjugates you and
should be eradicated"). With the former message I tell, that free
software is good for users and as such has a positive message. The
latter one is negative argument which has often a paradoxical and
defensively effect, which can even lead to the result, that some people
think that I am a lunatic. Simple marketing psychology.


It is OK to use the terms in a positive way but not to be distracted 
from the issue of freedom. A position more according to FSF and in the 
positive sense as you propose would be: "Use ONLY free software to be in 
control of your computer".



The point is: If you seek FSFs endorsement for ConnochaetOS, I would
think that you agree with their philisophy and not with OSI's


I didn't mention OSI anywhere. Of course I support the free software
philosophy. But I don't think it would be good to exclude open source
activists or people who use the term "open source" instead of "free
software". There is no sharp boundary between those camps anyway.



You do not mention them but propose the same things as they do.


Freedom takes sacrifice.

George W. Bush, 2005, about the war in Iraq


You cannot compare searching for freedom with attacking another country 
and killing people. I do not propose hurting anybody or killing people 
for the sake of freedom. That is contradictory. Please do not use that 
type of camparison. It makes me feel you think that I am equal to that 
terrible person. It is for me as if I would compare you to Hitler.


--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero


"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Jason Self]

Quiliro Ordóñez wrote
> The point is: If you seek FSFs endorsement for ConnochaetOS, I would
> think that you agree with their philisophy and not with OSI's

Er; is't actually:

  

Exactly! :)

> For example, if I tell someone who is unfamiliar with free software
> "With open source software you have the freedom to use and to modify
> the software, and  additionally to redistribute the software and your
> modifications. That's why I recommend to use it"

But do you explain why that's important? From the OSI website: "The promise of
open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower
cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in."

I know several people with this mindset. Their view is that software should
succeed on techical merits alone. They use the term "open source" and mean it
(i.e., not to be confused with those who say "open source" because they just
don't know any better.) At no point do they discuss the
social/ethical/political issues surrounding technology.

That's the key difference between free software and open source, I think.
Although there seems to be a general consensus about the freedoms that people
should have (run, study, modify and distribute the software), and the same
programs can qualify as both "open source" and "free software" at the same
time, the difference is that open source focuses on the technical reasons for
why those freedoms are important (as stated on the Open Source website) while
the free softwarement movement says that these freedoms are important on basic
ethical grounds. Whether it's also technically better isn't really the issue.
I'm reminded of this brief segment from RMS's talk at LibrePlanet 2010:

http://aws.bluehome.net/better.oga

I'm also reminded of this quote:

There is a true political issue in the choice between the terms "free
software" and "open source", and the respective ideas associated with
each.  Developers have a right to their political views, and we won't
judge the ethics of a distro by the political opinions that come with
it.  However, when we decide how much to promote a distro, we will
certainly do this more if it supports our cause.

Source: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FreeSoftwareAnalysis/FSF


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hi Quiliro,

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:57:10 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:


>I don't see where the problem is to erradicate 
>things that do bad such as hunger, infant death and user subjugating 
>software.

The problem is the attitude. I can propagate my message in a positive
style ("Use free software to be in control of your computer") or in a
negative style ("Don't use proprietary software, it subjugates you and
should be eradicated"). With the former message I tell, that free
software is good for users and as such has a positive message. The
latter one is negative argument which has often a paradoxical and
defensively effect, which can even lead to the result, that some people
think that I am a lunatic. Simple marketing psychology. 

> The point is: If you seek FSFs endorsement for ConnochaetOS, I would 
> think that you agree with their philisophy and not with OSI's 
> 

I didn't mention OSI anywhere. Of course I support the free software
philosophy. But I don't think it would be good to exclude open source
activists or people who use the term "open source" instead of "free
software". There is no sharp boundary between those camps anyway. 

>Freedom takes sacrifice.

George W. Bush, 2005, about the war in Iraq

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

On 22/08/11 03:25, Henry Jensen wrote:

Hello,



:-)


On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 18:44:23 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:


Open source philosophy proposes to use open source software as much as
possible. And where it is not possible it proposes to use proprietary
software as long as this is better for the development model.

That is not true in all cases. There are "Open Source" camps who reject
proprietary software and "free software" activists who have no problems
of using proprietary software. For example the OpenBSD project
describes itself as "free" but most OpenBSD people I spoke to have no
problem at all with using proprietary software on their desktop.



There are people that say they are for freedom but are in for control 
(e.g. Microsoft). What you say proves my point.



Free software philosophy proposes to eradicate non free software and to
develop alternatives to non free software or not use it at all.

This is a example of a cultural difference I spoke about in my last
mail. For me it is unthinkable to say that I want to "eradicate"
something. This is language I and most other people in my cultural
environment avoid.




You do not give an example of a free software activist that defends the 
use of non free software. I don't see where the problem is to erradicate 
things that do bad such as hunger, infant death and user subjugating 
software.


There are many people that consider themselves as free software 
activists. But if they do not defend freedom they are not FS activists. 
The FS movement is not against proprietary software activists but 
against non free (user subjugating) software. It is not intolerance 
against people. It is desire to erradicate abuse. It is never possible 
but it is possible to try to get the most free software we can and not 
that amount which is most comfortable for us. Freedom takes sacrifice.


The point is: If you seek FSFs endorsement for ConnochaetOS, I would 
think that you agree with their philisophy and not with OSI's 


--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero


"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hello,

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 18:44:23 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:

> Open source philosophy proposes to use open source software as much as 
> possible. And where it is not possible it proposes to use proprietary 
> software as long as this is better for the development model.

That is not true in all cases. There are "Open Source" camps who reject
proprietary software and "free software" activists who have no problems
of using proprietary software. For example the OpenBSD project
describes itself as "free" but most OpenBSD people I spoke to have no
problem at all with using proprietary software on their desktop.

> Free software philosophy proposes to eradicate non free software and to 
> develop alternatives to non free software or not use it at all.

This is a example of a cultural difference I spoke about in my last
mail. For me it is unthinkable to say that I want to "eradicate"
something. This is language I and most other people in my cultural
environment avoid. 


Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hello,

I have revised http://www.connochaetos.org/wiki/fully_free_-_what_does_it_mean, 
so that it should be  clarified now what we mean and what we talk about. In the 
end, I think, we all mean the same. But there are some cultural differences 
which may lead people to choose other wordings. For example in Germany we tend 
to use a careful diction and try to avoid wordings which may sound ideological, 
which has something to do that we had two dictatorships in the last 80 years, 
even if we argue for freedom or humanism.


Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

I agree that it is good to encourage the term "free software" over
"open source". But I still don't think that this is a crucial point.

Like you said, many say "open source" when they mean "free software".
I admit, sometimes I use the term "open source" as well in discussions
when I speak with people who are unfamiliar with free software -
because the term "open source" is more known than "free software" and
"free software" is confused with "Freeware" very often. Often there is
simply not enough time to explain the difference between "Freeware" and
"free software". What matters is the message that is transmitted.



Open source philosophy proposes to use open source software as much as 
possible. And where it is not possible it proposes to use proprietary 
software as long as this is better for the development model.


Free software philosophy proposes to eradicate non free software and to 
develop alternatives to non free software or not use it at all.


The messages trasmitted by open source and by free software are 
radically different. They convey different objectives and thus take 
different routes. Promoting a common position betwen both confuses 
people that do not understand the objectives of both movements. Both 
movements can make free software but the objectives of both movements 
cannot be mixed in the same container.


--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero


"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

Dear Richard Stallman.

Will you please tell us your position and the position of FSF about the 
following issue? It is important to have an official position and not 
someone else's opinion about it. I think this will ease ConnochaetOS' 
approval as an FSF endorsed distro. Thank you very much.


On 21/08/11 11:34, Henry Jensen wrote:

Hello Jason,

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 09:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
"Jason Self"  wrote:


Henry Jensen wrote:

So "free software" and "open source" are considered as the same
community at the FSFE.

But ConnochaetOS isn't requesting an endorsement from FSFE.

Well, I know they are independent organisations. But since the FSF
don't have an organisation here and english is not my native language,
I must rely on that what the FSFE in Germany is saying.

So, now you are saying that FSF and FSFE are have different positions
on this matter. That's a pity but I think that must be worked out
between those organisations at the top level. Regarding this matter,
there are very fine and detailed nuances which may even differ from
person to person. In fact I know that RMS is now involved in this
matter and I have received a mail from him in which he says, that both,
free software and open source camp, "are part of one community". Since
it is a personal mail I can't quote it here entirely.


With the earlier recommendation to install the non-free kernel, and now the
recommendation to use Plop, if the website is being edited by members of the
community is there anything in place to ensure that things like this don't 
happen?

Yes, we have a section for reporting bugs as I wrote in the initial
mail. This things happen, it happens at other free distros as well.
AFAIK the FSDG do allow to make mistakes and of course we will correct
them promptly.

Regards,

Henry







--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero


"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Sam Geeraerts]

Henry Jensen wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:00:22 +0200
Sam Geeraerts  wrote:
In any case, it's clear that using the term "free software" over "open 
source" should be encouraged within FSDG distro communities. I think 
it's not necessary to make an FSDG rule for this, but that it's an 
indicator of a community's strength.


I am not sure what you mean by "a community's strength." 


I mean commitment to software freedom. Using the term "open source" is 
not a big problem in itself, but it invites scrutiny to the project. 
Kind of like when someone disposing of a lot of empty wine bottles: not 
a problem in itself, but it could make you wonder if he has an alcohol 
problem.



I agree that it is good to encourage the term "free software" over
"open source". But I still don't think that this is a crucial point.


Indeed, I said encourage, not mandate.

Like you said, many say "open source" when they mean "free software". 
I admit, sometimes I use the term "open source" as well in discussions 
when I speak with people who are unfamiliar with free software -

because the term "open source" is more known than "free software" and
"free software" is confused with "Freeware" very often. Often there is
simply not enough time to explain the difference between "Freeware" and
"free software". What matters is the message that is transmitted.


It's unfortunate that the term is confusing. That's why it's even better 
to say "software freedom" when the situation allows. I see what you 
mean, but this thread is about communication within a free distro 
community. I doubt that confusion with "freeware" is much of a problem 
there. If it is, then it's easily solved with a refence to a webpage 
written for this purpose or to gnu.org.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hello Sam,

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:00:22 +0200
Sam Geeraerts  wrote:

> In any case, it's clear that using the term "free software" over "open 
> source" should be encouraged within FSDG distro communities. I think 
> it's not necessary to make an FSDG rule for this, but that it's an 
> indicator of a community's strength.

I am not sure what you mean by "a community's strength." 

I agree that it is good to encourage the term "free software" over
"open source". But I still don't think that this is a crucial point.

Like you said, many say "open source" when they mean "free software". 
I admit, sometimes I use the term "open source" as well in discussions 
when I speak with people who are unfamiliar with free software -
because the term "open source" is more known than "free software" and
"free software" is confused with "Freeware" very often. Often there is
simply not enough time to explain the difference between "Freeware" and
"free software". What matters is the message that is transmitted.

For example, if I tell someone who is unfamiliar with free software
"With open source software you have the freedom to use and to modify
the software, and  additionally to redistribute the software and your
modifications. That's why I recommend to use it" it should be clear
what I mean. If I would use the term "free software" instead and the
person confuses it with "Freeware" this would lead to false conclusion.
This example isn't out of the blue, it really happened once, when
someone redistributed a "Freeware" program, which was forbidden by the
license of that proprietary program. "But you said, that I can ..." Bad
mistake.

I prefer the term "free software" as well, and as I told before, I am
willing to correct the term "open source" in our wiki if and when I
encounter it. But as long as the criteria of the FSDG are met (i. e. no
non-free software is recommended) I don't see a reason to establish
some kind of authentic language.



Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Sam Geeraerts]

Henry Jensen wrote:

So, now you are saying that FSF and FSFE are have different positions
on this matter.


I think both FSF and FSFE are of the opinion that "free software" and 
"open source" mean different (though not hugely different) things for 
people who know what they're talking about, but that a lot of people who 
say "open source" are not aware that they really mean "free software". 
The difference in style between both organisations is that FSF/RMS puts 
more focus on educating people about the distinction, whereas FSFE has 
more of a "close enough, you're on the good side of the spectrum" attitude.


In any case, it's clear that using the term "free software" over "open 
source" should be encouraged within FSDG distro communities. I think 
it's not necessary to make an FSDG rule for this, but that it's an 
indicator of a community's strength.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hello Jason,

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 09:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
"Jason Self"  wrote:

> Henry Jensen wrote:
> > So "free software" and "open source" are considered as the same
> > community at the FSFE.
> 
> But ConnochaetOS isn't requesting an endorsement from FSFE.

Well, I know they are independent organisations. But since the FSF
don't have an organisation here and english is not my native language,
I must rely on that what the FSFE in Germany is saying. 

So, now you are saying that FSF and FSFE are have different positions
on this matter. That's a pity but I think that must be worked out
between those organisations at the top level. Regarding this matter,
there are very fine and detailed nuances which may even differ from
person to person. In fact I know that RMS is now involved in this
matter and I have received a mail from him in which he says, that both, 
free software and open source camp, "are part of one community". Since
it is a personal mail I can't quote it here entirely.

> With the earlier recommendation to install the non-free kernel, and now the
> recommendation to use Plop, if the website is being edited by members of the
> community is there anything in place to ensure that things like this don't 
> happen?

Yes, we have a section for reporting bugs as I wrote in the initial
mail. This things happen, it happens at other free distros as well.
AFAIK the FSDG do allow to make mistakes and of course we will correct
them promptly.

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Thanks, I have removed that.


On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:26:52 +0200
Sam Geeraerts  wrote:

> The explanation about booting with a floppy [1] recommends the Plop boot 
> manager, which is non-free. Excerpt from the License section on its 
> website: "The programs are NOT free to use for commercial use.".
> 
> [1] http://www.connochaetos.org/wiki/other_methods_of_installation
> 

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Jason Self]

Henry Jensen wrote:
> So "free software" and "open source" are considered as the same
> community at the FSFE.

But ConnochaetOS isn't requesting an endorsement from FSFE.

Sam Geeraerts wrote:
> The explanation about booting with a floppy [1] recommends the Plop boot 
> manager, which is non-free.

With the earlier recommendation to install the non-free kernel, and now the
recommendation to use Plop, if the website is being edited by members of the
community is there anything in place to ensure that things like this don't 
happen?


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Sam Geeraerts]

The explanation about booting with a floppy [1] recommends the Plop boot 
manager, which is non-free. Excerpt from the License section on its 
website: "The programs are NOT free to use for commercial use.".


[1] http://www.connochaetos.org/wiki/other_methods_of_installation

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:03:48 +
Ineiev  wrote:

> > Anyway, I think this discussion is a little off-topic on this list.
> 
> It is being discussed whether a free distribution may want to represent itself
> as Open Source.

I think there is a misunderstanding. ConnochaetOS, as far as I as the
maintainer can stand for it, represents itself explicitly as Free
Software.

However, I am not alone and there are people who help the project,
especially in the forum by answering questions from  users and doing
some documentation in the wiki. They feel obligated to free software.
But they may use sometimes wordings that may look unfortunate by some
other people in the Free Software Community.

This is how we came here. Now, there are some points that should be
clarified:

1. The Free System Distribution Guidelines doesn't require to use or to
avoid explicit wordings. It requires that a free distro "must take care
not to recommend nonfree software." The FSDG covers content of a free
distros documentation, but there is no prescribed terminology. If I am
mistaken, please correct me.

2. In the explicit case it is discussed if it is okay, if some members
of a free distro use the term "open source" in its documentation. I had
a discussion with a representative of the FSFE about this matter, and
the FSFEs summarized point of view is "We prefer the term "free
software", but if you say "open source" it is fine with us, because it
is the same thing". So, from the FSFEs point of view there should be no
problem.

I myself see this matter a little more severe. I think the term "free
software" should be used, and I correct wordings occasionally. But
since many new users are involved and the community is growing I can't
control every sentence they write. What's more: In a hypothetical
discussion in our community about this issue, a member who uses the
term "open source" can always refer to the FSFE and say "Hey, the FSFE
said, it is okay when I say "open source"". Since 90 percent of our
community is living in Europe that would be a reasonable point and one
could hardly argue against that.

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Ineiev]

On 08/18/2011 07:27 AM, Henry Jensen wrote:
> I pointed him to the document at
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html. He
> suggested, that this document is outdated, implying that it is not
> valid any more.

He must have been mistaken: that article is the second highest priority for
the translators 
(http://www.gnu.org/server/standards/translations/priorities.html);
two months ago rms confirmed this: he reminded GNU translation managers
that the article is one of the most important on www.gnu.org.


Anyway, I think this discussion is a little off-topic on this list.


It is being discussed whether a free distribution may want to represent itself
as Open Source.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hi Ruben,

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:03:34 +0200
Rubén Rodríguez  wrote:

> Even if you found individuals involved with the FSFE who believe that
> Free Software and Open Source are the same movements, that is not the
> FSFE position: http://fsfe.org/documents/whyfs.html
> 
> You may also find people involved with the FSF who think like that,
> anyone can be wrong. But finding many people being wrong never was a
> good argument anyway. ;)

The document you linked is not necessarily a contradiction. It merely
says that the term "free software" is preferable to "open source".

The persons I spoke and wrote to are not just anyone within the FSFE,
it was, amongst others, the Fellowship Coordinator and the Coordinator
of the German team of the FSFE, so I must account his statements as
official statements of the FSFE. I spoke to him at a conference about
this issue and discussed it with him at the german FSFE mailing list,
see
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-de/2010-December/002883.html
(in german, partly english translation as follows):

"Richard [Stallman], as I saw it, didn't speak about two different
communities in the last time. The FSFE didn't do it. Free Software and
Open Source are terms for the one and same thing. We use the term free
software, http://www.fsfe.org/campaigns/whyfs/whyfs.de.html, but we
don't see people who use other terms outside our community"

"The FSFE recommends to think yourself. Use [the term] free software or
open source, whatever you think is better. [...] we don't dictate
strategies. If someone thinks that he can explain free software better
with the term open source then he should do it."

Again, he speaks as "we, the FSFE", thus as an official FSFE
representative. And, what's more, there were no objection on the list
to his view, besides my own.

I pointed him to the document at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html. He
suggested, that this document is outdated, implying that it is not
valid any more.

Partly translation from 
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-de/2010-December/002887.html

"If I remember correctly the main part of it is from 2007.
Unfortunately I can't find a more current interview in which Richard
speaks about two different communities."

As I have explained, I see the issue the same way as Jason, I only
wanted to point out, that there are different views about it in the free
software community. In the FSF the "two-different-communtities" view is
dominant, in the FSFE it is the "two-terms-but-same-thing" view.
Anyway, I think this discussion is a little off-topic on this list.

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Rubén Rodríguez]

> BTW: I recently had a discussion on this one with some people from the
> Free Software Foundation Europe, the FSF's sister organization in
> Europe. Many people at the FSFE have a different point of view on
> this.
> 
> They prefer the term "free software" as well, but they believe that
> "open source" and "free software" is the same and they don't think
> that both "free software" and "open source" community have different
> goals. So "free software" and "open source" are considered as the same
> community at the FSFE. You see, the view on this topic is not
> homogeneous in the Free Software Community itself.

Even if you found individuals involved with the FSFE who believe that
Free Software and Open Source are the same movements, that is not the
FSFE position: http://fsfe.org/documents/whyfs.html

You may also find people involved with the FSF who think like that,
anyone can be wrong. But finding many people being wrong never was a
good argument anyway. ;)

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

Congratulations! I think that it is a great effort and that you are on 
the path to being a unique libre distro.




BTW: I recently had a discussion on this one with some people from the
Free Software Foundation Europe, the FSF's sister organization in
Europe. Many people at the FSFE have a different point of view on this.

They prefer the term "free software" as well, but they believe that
"open source" and "free software" is the same and they don't think that
both "free software" and "open source" community have different goals.
So "free software" and "open source" are considered as the same
community at the FSFE. You see, the view on this topic is not
homogeneous in the Free Software Community itself.


Please consider that for the free software movement these are very 
different points of view. If someone told you the movements search the 
same goals, then they support the open source ideas and not ours. It is 
respectable but it is not our point of view.


For the free software movement, the goal is freedom. Technical quality 
is a desireable side effect. For the open source people, it is the other 
way around. Hardly, the objectives merge. Possibly the tools do but 
results are different. They are as similar as the pot and the weapon 
industries. Both search different objectives using steel. But they use 
different strategies to achieve different goals.

--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero


"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hello Jason,

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
"Jason Self"  wrote:

Thanks for your remarks. You mentioned mainly some poor wordings at the
web site. I am with you on this, but not all members of our community
are very familiar with the appropriate wording. 

However, the wording it is not completely controllable within a diverse
community. And as far as the FSDG and the Checklist at
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Free_System_Distribution_Checklist goes, it
is not mentioned, that it is a requirement to avoid certain phrases.

> I noticed that the website makes several references to ConnochaetOS as 
> a "Linux" distribution, rather than GNU/Linux. One example is here [1] but 
> there are others.

Ah yes, I change it to GNU/Linux whenever I encounter such a
reference. 

> Also, is suggesting that people change their kernel to one with proprietary 
> software something that should be suggested [2], even with the disclaimer 
> that 
> it's not recommended? If it's not recommended why even mention it?

You are right, this one I took serious and removed it.

> And... everything in ConnochaetOS is "open source"? It's also free software 
> too 
> I hope? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

Of course it should be "free software". It will be changed when
discovered.

BTW: I recently had a discussion on this one with some people from the
Free Software Foundation Europe, the FSF's sister organization in
Europe. Many people at the FSFE have a different point of view on this.

They prefer the term "free software" as well, but they believe that
"open source" and "free software" is the same and they don't think that
both "free software" and "open source" community have different goals.
So "free software" and "open source" are considered as the same
community at the FSFE. You see, the view on this topic is not
homogeneous in the Free Software Community itself.


Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Jason Self]

I noticed that the website makes several references to ConnochaetOS as 
a "Linux" distribution, rather than GNU/Linux. One example is here [1] but 
there are others.

Also, is suggesting that people change their kernel to one with proprietary 
software something that should be suggested [2], even with the disclaimer that 
it's not recommended? If it's not recommended why even mention it?

And... everything in ConnochaetOS is "open source"? It's also free software too 
I hope? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

[1] http://www.connochaetos.org/wiki/configuration:firststeps
[2] http://www.connochaetos.org/wiki/fully_free_-_what_does_it_mean


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

ConnochaetOS is a fully free/libre GNU/Linux operating system for the
desktop with old computers in mind, but with modern software.
ConnochaetOS contains only free software, according to the GNU
Guidelines for Free System Distributions.

We have been added to the "incoming distros" list at librelanet.org in
October 2010, see http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Incoming_distros 

We recently released our first stable version 0.9.0 and we believe that
ConnochaetOS is ready to be evaluated for being endorsed by the Free
Software Foundation.

The web site is at http://www.connochaetos.org

Binary packages are available at http://www.connochaetos.org/os/i586/ 

Source code packages along with the PKGBUILDs are available at
http://www.connochaetos.org/os/src/ 

Bugs, including freedom issues, can be reported at
http://www.connochaetos.org/forum/index.php?cat=11#cat11 or by using
the contact form at http://www.connochaetos.org/wiki/contact

The central tool to communicate is our public forum at
http://www.connochaetos.org/forum

We also have a group at identi.ca which can be used to contact us, see
https://identi.ca/group/connochaetos

We have a clear policy to only include free software. Our "Purposes and
aims" can be read at http://www.connochaetos.org/wiki/purpose. Packages
which have freedom issues according to the Guidelines for Free System
Distributions and the list at
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Software_blacklist will be modified,
replaced or removed.

The server ConnochaetOS is hosted on is independent from company
interests and funded by ourselves. Commercial advertisements that have
been displayed on the web site before have been removed. We rely only on
donations now.

Since our initial announcement one years has passed, but our community
has a history of already 9 years, coming originally from a GNU/Linux
distribution for old computers which didn't follow the FSDG on purpose
back then (OTOH, the FSDG and Linux-Libre didn't exist back in 2002). 

We believe that our goal to provide an free desktop operating system
for old and low-spec computers is unique in the world of free operating
systems which follow the Guidelines for Free System Distributions, and
is wanted by many users. One Indication that support this statement is,
that our beta versions and release candidates have been downloaded 30
to 50 times per day. Since our stable release two days ago, the
ConnochaetOS Installation ISO image have been downloaded over 2,000
times. So we think ConnochaetOS should be added to the list of Free
GNU/Linux distributions.