On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Maor Meir wrote: > > I think ideology is important and we shold try to say something about it > I also have noticed that by looking over past lectures they fit the title > Free Software much better than the title Linux (Linux is also GPL'ed) even > though I believe ther aren't many club members running BSD as theier > primary OS. >
Well, I sometimes refer to the open source world as the Linux world, because most of the development and the action takes place in regards to Linux. I realize that there's a huge difference between Linux, GNU/Linux or even GNU to "the free software world", but it's a fact that their intersection is greater than their exclusive parts. > I do not think names are terribly important, On the contrary names are very important. I think the "Haifa Linux Club" and "Haifux" (which some pronounce with an heih and others with a cheith) are good names because they roll off the tongue, are short, descriptive and as such make good marketing. I can't think of a better name involving "free software", "open source" or both. If you think about it, you can see that Hamakor despite being titled "Hamakor - an Israeli Society for Free Software and Open Source Code" is just known as hamakor. I don't mind saying on our own homepage "Haifa Linux Club - Home for Free Software and Open Source Enthusiasts in the Haifa Area", but I'm still just going to say "Haifux". > but I think it whould be > apropriate to put something on our web site which says something about > Free Software and Open Source. In our W2L lectures we made sure to speak > of ideology and no one seemed to complain. > Of course we should. > It is probably possible to right something that says software should be > open source and preferbly free. That most people would agree with. > It is also possible to say something showing both the OSI way and the FS > way. > I usually avoid discussing the difference between the free software definition and the open source definition/Debian Free Software Guidelines. Most software out there either not open source or both open source and free software. The difference in terminology is in cronotation and the difference between the Stallmanist and Raymondist Point-of-Views. For more information refer to my article: http://fc-solve.berlios.de/oss-fs/docbook/ ("Open Source, Free Software and Other Beasts"). I hope it nicely summarizes most of one needs to know about the FOSS world. > As to my opinion, I prefer FreeSoftware and I prefer the GPL, but in > somecases for the intrest of a better product for me and others I will use > other licences. And when pushed to the corner I do use closed-source > software. > That's a very good ideology. I hold a slightly different one, but I have better things to do than to try and push it into otherwise productive, honest, and healthy-minded people. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, especially on such relatively ammoral preferences. Regards, Shlomi Fish ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/ You are banished! You are banished! You are banished! Hey? I'm just kidding! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Haifa Linux Club Mailing List (http://www.haifux.org) To unsub send an empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
