On 11/05/12 07:23, Dave Crossland wrote:
I think a sustainable "free software" label is missing
I think the GPL functions as this. I know people who don't use
GNU+Linux as their main OS but who search for GPL software (eg they
web search for 'gpl cd burning windows')
The GPL is far from being a label:
_it is a license, and a special one with an important twist
(and therefore quite abstract and hard to explain)
_it is intransparent and scattered into GPL, GPLv3, AGPL, LGPL,....
_it is not equal to the term "free software", there is lots of
free software that does not and cannot carry that label
It is way too hard to know if certain applications actually ARE free
software as described by the fsf.
The label that misses would not have to be a big legal document that
works for code projects.
It should be just that: a label.
Your 5 step theory points to the ultimate goal: "software freedom matters."
But what is that insight good for if people cannot recognize it?
Interested people would are drawn to more popular labels like "the
linux" or "open source", get attracted to the nice superficial
principles and loose the awareness of the importance of freedom.
My point is: we need a label for fsf approved "free software". There is
none.
