Hi Scott, > On Saturday 13. June 2015 12.08.39 Scott Wilson wrote: >> (The only thing I’d like to note is that its important not to confuse >> software freedom for users with financial costs for developers.
Nobody questioned that. The former is a formal, legal hindrance, yet. Meanwhile the latter is a hidden one, but by no means less effective one. Focusing on the latter does not affect_ the former, on the other hand. sic. >Its easy >> to get exercised by having to pay €50 for a standards document, but if >> that standard can be implemented without encumbrance, and the >> implementation freely shared, modified and distributed by users then it >> better supports FOSS principles than a standard that is free to download, >> read and implement, but which incurs licensing costs or usage restrictions >> on users.) So there is no point calling the one problem "better" then the other. You do not gain one at cost of the other, neither. But you could imaging that their is a gaiming intelligence behind, that choose the one "weapon" instead of the other. Well for free software this is sure, as a term, for fossy one the interest situation could be different, but it is to express that I do _not feel easy with it, at all. Why not open a club Industries-only-open-software. IOOSy? Hey be realistic! So the next one who says open source to mine, referring to gpl kind stuff, is getting sued. (; Lets put it in gpl_v4. Have fun anyway _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
