On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Adrian Midgley wrote: ... > Could we review what we call it, and choose the unambiguous > French, libre software (if the Academie will put up with that or > logiciel libre if it won't) rather than the ambiguous English, > or American, term, please?
Adrian, You make a good point. But no, mis-understandings such as this is not simply caused by a poor choice of terms. Thus, distorted understanding of "Free software" cannot possibly be resolved by any committee decision (no matter who is on the committee). :-) I agree that the original choice of the term "Free software" may have contribute to some mis-understanding. Introducing any new concept using existing words always comes with this problem. It will take time for people to appreciate that they themselves have to contribute to the production of Free software. Hence, Free software promotes freedom to share and collaborate, and CANNOT possibly mean free of cost of production. However, not all misunderstandings come from the choice of terms. Much misunderstanding also come from intentional distortions. I think it is helpful to continue to use the term "Free software" - in fact, it is important to do so as long as the Free Software Foundation and Stallman continue to use this term. It is a way to give credit and reference their important contributions. Also, changing the name of the concept may not be the best way to promote understanding of the concept. That said, anyone can try other terms such as 'open source', 'libre software', 'logiciel libre', etc - as long as they are clearly defined by the specific software licenses (e.g. GPL, LGPL, and "open source" definition here: http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php). Maybe they will turn out to be superior to "Free software"? Sorry but I just don't think coining yet more terms will reduce intentionally introduced distortions. But I could be wrong - maybe it goes something like this: Free software means low or no cost --> that means it must have been ill-gotten or stolen, otherwise, how can they give it away for free or for so cheap - clearly below the cost of legitimate production? now if we replace "Free software" with "Libre software", what difference would it make? "Libre software is a Franch idea --> Europe/France wants to take jobs away from American companies like Microsoft. Buy American, boycott Libre software!" We already know how they distorted "open source": "Open source software promotes sharing of the source code --> That's what 'shared source' does too." That's why I think changing the name of our "project" again will not get us too far. The OpenSource.org people have already tried this. We need to work hard making software, read, discuss, educate, and support each other for the long-haul - and keep in check our wish for a quick and easy solution (by committee or otherwise). Best regards, Andrew --- Andrew P. Ho, M.D. OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes www.TxOutcome.Org
