* Stuart Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-12-05 19:42:52 -0700]:
> Do you feel that I present a fair and accurate portrayal?
> Is the document understandable to a person with limited experience with
> computers or the issues involved?
> I'm a little informal in places. Does this detract from the document?
> Do I miss any important points?
> What should be footnoted/linked?
> Where have I forgotten to give credit?
> Did I make any style mistakes?
>
> Feel free to answer any question I didn't ask but should have.
>
Very interesting, Stuart. For some reason (probably because it is a
PDF version 1.4) this file causes gs on the CAEDM HP workstations to
barf. Xpdf to the rescue.
Perhaps move the first sidebar ("libre/gratis") down a few lines. It's
good, but it makes more sense after reading the first paragraph of
Defining Free Software.
"Although some people have attacked the quality and cost of Free and
open source source software, history has already proven them wrong."
Put in a (small) footnote citing Apache or bind. This looks better, and
even non-technical people are interested in getting their web pages
faster and more reliably.
The first Freedom of Free Software is a bit difficult. What if I wanted
to use the Linux kernel to develop (say) my own proprietary router, and
did not release the source code? We can get to chopping logic here,
but I would change this to something like "The freedom to put the
software to any use."
Copyright and Commercial Use, paragraph 2:
"old fashioned" -> "old-fashioned"
Paragraph 4-6: I would rewrite this part. Get rid of all but the first
sentence of paragraph 4-- you clearly state the facts in the following
paragraphs.
The Real Communism, prg.2-- come, come, Stuart. I happen to favor BSD
license over GPL, for appropriate purposes. The choice of license
should be decided by the author. _I_ generally think that this choice
should apply to each derivative generation of software, but since (for
example) Linus Torvalds chose the GPL, more power to him. That's his
choice. I hope I'm not "[d]emonstrating [my] selfish motives" by this
position. The section as a whole is very good, but this paragraph
is a bit strident. Besides, you're walking a fine line when you
contrast "people being forced to share the product of their labor" and
people being required to share. Sounds like the difference between a
basis case and an induction step to me.
paragraph 8-- see above. :) It might be good if you cited an example
of such hypocrisy.
footnote 4-- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
(You might add a brief explanation. I won't attempt one right now.)
footnote 5-- http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
(You might add a brief explanation such as this:)
"The FreeBSD Copyright is representative of BSD-style
licenses. Note its simplicity and brevity. The main points are that
1. any form of any derivative work must carry the copyright notice, and
2. the software is provided "as is"-- no-one can sue the FreeBSD
project over this software for any reason."
-->F<--ree
I notice that you consistently use the capitalization "Free software"
throughout your essay. This is a bit odd, like "Boba fett" or "Han solo"
(but perhaps just because I have never seen this before). To my eyes,
at least, "Free Software" might be better.
All in all, a very good essay. All throughout, though, your tone seems
reasoned but angry. Readers unfamiliar with the matter would not
understand your tone at first. I think it is fairly complete, but you
might put in a brief part about why people _do_ write free software:
It's fun! It scratches an itch. It's interesting. It's ethical.
There is the social side too: Authors of succesful, popular free
software are superstars. We see them and think "They did that in their
spare time-- wow! I can do that!" The fame and reputation that comes
from the visibility of code source (again, as you have pointed out,
coinciding with but not the same thing as freedom) is a very attractive
thing.
> --
> Stuart Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED], AIM:StuartMJansen>
> "[I]ncoherence is one of the luxuries of impotence. Those who cannot, or
> will not, take responsibility themselves feel free to snipe at those who
> do." - The Economist, 8 Nov 2003, pg. 11
--
Arlie Capps
CS student at BYU
____________________
BYU Unix Users Group
http://uug.byu.edu/
___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
