Interesting.... I think this is one of the problems with the Free Software movement.
"any tool that is not free-as-in-freedom is unethical" This must have got quite a few people backs up? I'm not saying its wrong, just in the language you can see why people object without even understanding the principle. I understand the differences between open source and free software but the fact people are at least willing to try an alternative licence to the "all right reserved" is a good thing in my book. Maybe with a less in your face delivery, free software will win over even more people and become the poster child of a generation like open source currently is. Ian Forrester || backstage.bbc.co.uk || x83965 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland Sent: 05 December 2006 16:41 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [backstage] Mozilla interview and Backstage Schwag preview However, any tool that is not free-as-in-freedom is unethical, because it cannot be shared, and unsustainable, because it cannot be independently improved. Today I'm more interested in Free Software than web standards, because I think that the practical problems with Flash about 5 years ago have largely been resolved, and the remaining problems are due to the cultural inertia of Flash developers. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
