On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Martin wrote:
> > I admit it's not perfect - it's not catchy, and it's awkward - but
> > it's better than what we currently have IMO.
>
> your right, because people assume they know what "free" means, so they
> don't bother to question what it really means in a particular context...
That's right. It's all about context. People are bombarded with
advertising all day and whenever the word "free" is used it means "no
cost". When we try to explain Linux and/or Free/Open source software to
someone, they see it as just another product (since we live in such a
commercial world) and assume the same meaning for "free".
We have to really hammer home the point that it's not about cost at all,
which can be really confusing for some people. Everyone's so used to the
way commercial operations work, that they assume some nefarious reason for
why we're giving away all this software for free:
* It's to build demand - sometime in the near future Linus will suddenly
turn around and start charging for Linux and pull in the big bucks.
* It's all just pirated/hacked software.
* It's public domain software that we're just throwing away.
Getting a bit off topic there...
Obviously this whole name problem with "free" was the reason for "Open
Source(tm)" being created. What's wrong with that term?
I know some people don't like it for political reasons - RMS vs ESR.
But is that all? Is Open Source too open, in that it allows non-GPL
licenses?
> > Maybe some other language has a catchier word for "libre".
Erm, frei? freisoftware?
Don't know too much German...
--
8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------
Ian Tester *8)# \7\ LINUX: because geeks will find a way
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \7\ http://www.zipworld.com.au/~imroy
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
