Nathan Schneider <[email protected]> wrote: > My kid's sickness is creeping through my brain! I mis-wrote.
My wishes for a speedy recovery. >>>> ...distinct categories for ‘free/libre’ [1] and ‘open source’ software >>>> [2]. What definitions of that terms do you use, so this is required? >…> > Free/libre = GPL compatible That’s by no means a common usage. If we exclude misinterpretations, leaving only deliberate decisions, I’d say it would remain unique. > Open source = GPL compatible + GPL incompatible open codebases . Open source = any open codebases . Open source = any open source code collections . Open source = any any open source code collections code collections . <...> . Segmentation fault :-) > On 3/12/19 4:52 PM, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> Nathan Schneider <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I would love any suggestions about how to handle this matter better! >>> >> In the same way as nearly everyone do, of course. Do not install a separate >> category of ‘open source’ software in any sense of that phrase. Due to its >> overwhelming usage as a metonymy for ‘free’ in the anglophonic sphere, that >> category will became the only one really used, while ‘free / libre’ will >> remain neglected, thus provoking confusions about how LibreOffice, Pandoc, >> etc are not free. It already went that way. > > It may be in the end that dropping "open source" altogether is the right > thing to do. We're starting with a wide net, with the goal of refining the > process as we go. Sure, it may be. Yet, it might be worth stressing, that I did not suggest to do that right away, but only to stop inventing new meanings for well-established (that is ‘free (libre) [software]’) and not so well-established (that is ‘open source [software]’) terms.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
