On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 11:56:40AM -0600, Arrakis wrote: > > Saying free and open-source software isn't "Free" and "Open Source" is > giving in to a combination of semantics and snobbery of licensing. It > isn't as though any organization owns the definition of "Free" and > "Open Source" and has the authority to pin it down to their specific > hoops we must jump through, nor should anyone assume we have. >
There are (at least) two things going on through this discussion that are run together and should be separated. 'Free' and 'open source' have long ago become technical terms in the context of software and programs. Technical terms allow a community to agree on some things so that it is not necessary to spend many paragraphs explaining terminology every time one wants to say something. This does not rob the terms of their broader meaning. And people can use the terms as they wish, but if they have a discussion in a context for which the terms have specific meaning, then they should expect to be misunderstood and yelled at a lot for confusing people and wasting their time. And, if they refuse to conform to the vocabulary of the community they can expect to eventually be simply dismissed as too much trouble to deal with. I would be subject to the same criticism if I started talking about free algebra, free groups, free variables, etc. using 'free' in some nonstandard way and simply insisting that it is correct. One can of course question the standard usage that has arisen and give arguments why other ways of speaking are more appropriate. But that is a topic for a forum where there is discussion about the basic meaning of those terms, not in a context where they are simply assumed and used, such as this one. Arrakis can do what he wishes with his software. If he calls it free software in a broader population, well it will be interpreted however it will. But, if he calls it free software in a software development forum, he is simply misusing an established term. But, after one or two posts, the meaning of "free" is off-topic for this forum and should be taken to one where it is appropriate. (People may also then get angry that the public will be misled and run together things that are not the same at all. This happens all the time when science hits the broader world. It is also part of what is going on here.) If it is important to continue a discussion of the different types of licenses that Tor software or other related software is under, e.g., because it affects decisions about further development and distribution of that software, then fights over the correct meaning of 'free' should be taken elsewhere. We can for these purposes adopt something like standard-free and arrakis-free for these discussions without quibbling over which of them is really free. -Paul (P.S. For more, please see my critical analysis of that moving treatise on the impact of Frege's Begriffsschrift in the years after the American Civil War, _Freedom's Lament: A History of the Bound Variable in America_. )
