Since this is a mailinglist about openmoko's «free»runner, I think it's normal to assume everyone on this mailinglist understands the idea behind the free philosophy.
On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 16:09 +0100, Viktor Lindberg wrote: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 01:21:50PM +0100, arne anka wrote: > > > the term "free software" was coined in or before 1989, when the GPLv1 was > > > published by the free software foundation . > > > > a) the group "free software" is nothing but a combination of an adjective > > and a substantive, the adjective qualifying the substantive > > b) qualifying a substantive with "free" has been in use long before the > > creation of "software" > > c) "free software" is in no way an unique term or used uniquely by the FSF > > -- the sentence you are quoting very clearly proves that by saying > > ""When we speak of free software" > > ie, the term is used in a certain sense in a certain context (the GPL) -- > > but there's no way, the GPL is globally applicable ot the authors are in > > any way authorized to rule the use of those very common and widely used > > words in a very common grammatical construction. > > > > Qualifying a substantive with "free" is far older yes, but that is > not a point, nor is a) a point. c) may be a point but they're really > just bringing clearity cause the word is fuzzy. > > > > > to conclude the discussion: sebastian would be right _only_ if somewhere > > in the discussion all participants had agreed to put the software in > > question under the GPL or at least use the GPL's definition. > > i can't recall, that has ever happend -- insofar any claim to use the > > GPL's definition as the solely applicable one is not justified! > > If one is to be used then that one should be used. Ethymologically > that is right, but also the other usage of the word isn't really > widely spread nor accepted by many today, it also makes no sense. > > > it is understandable to think in the trems of the GPL but it is not the > > only way to think. > > thus, if any author claims his/her software to be "free software", he/she > > is entitled to it -- only if he/she accepted the GPL's definition as the > > binding definition of the term, his/her software has to meet the > > requirements laid down in the GPL. > > GPL is not the only free license. Furthermore, if you by using the term > "free software" to describe software that is not free but gratis, you > have misused the word haven't you? > > > > but arne, whilst i hugely admire your software chops and appreciate the > > > work you've done, > > > > i don't know, what exactly you are talking about, but thanks anyway :-) > > > > > i think you're wrong to insist that others join you because you think > > > free software means only "free as in beer". > > > > i don't. > > as i hopefully made clear, i think the meaning of "free" (or "free > > software") has to be defined before accusing somebody of misuse > > and that definition was (and is) still lacking. > > free might be as in "beer" or "speech" or "nothing to do" (and those of us > > coming from eg the former communist parts of europe, will remember that > > not only the meaning of "free" might differ but even the extend involved), > > but that is not clear beforehand and certainly not implicit, even if most > > of us tend to think in therms of the GPL. > > Yes free may be interpreted as free of duties (which i belive is what > you meant with "nothing to do") however interpreteing it as free of > charge is still not a very good thing cause it breaks the definition > of free. > > Because free is such a fuzzy word, mainly due to misusage of the word > one can use the words libre or gratis to distinguish them. > > Open source is however not the same as FLOSS or Free/Libre Software. > The Open Source Movement have instead choosen to abandom the ethical > principle of freedom and only promote the use of Open Source software > that might not be libre (free as in freedom), which is not the same > idea as the Free Software movement has. For the Free Software movement > the idea of Free/Libre Software is that it should be free as in > freedom. Not just open for anyone to examine as is the case with Open > Source. > > And mainly because there is such a large movement of Free Software > (free as in freedom) and the usage of free while in the discussion of > software the usage of the word free in regards to software > is in any case but the term "Freeware" analogous with libre software. > > And you know what? Free as used in free of charge often can be > intepreted as you are free to do whatever you want to do with it, not > only that it is gratis. If i have a free soda pop for you, then you > can use it for whatever, even give it away to someone else.. for if i > attached criterias for why it is gratis then would it still be free? > > Please clean up your own language usage to avoid things like this, it > is tedious to have to be carefull about the word free is applied only > because people do not consider their own language usage or the > consistancy in their language. > > /end of arrogant rant about language usage. > > _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list email@example.com http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community