Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:38:00 +0300:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:47:07 +0000, Duncan wrote: > >>> You certainly mean GNU/Linux here, not the Linux kernel. Besides this >>> your explanation is good, thanks. >> >> But simply "Linux" in the common parlance. > > That "common parlance" is harmful for the Free Software Movement and > we're willing to change it. > Saying only "Linux" gives credit only to the Linux developers, which > is not fair. What's more important is that people think that this is > a system that was developed for students' amusement; they can hardly > figure out the software freedom issues that we always underline. >> I agree with Stallman in most cases, even giving him my sig-quote, >> but this isn't one of them. > > I think that you would agree with > http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html. Hmm... Maybe "Freedomware Linux" (or "Linux freedomware" in a slightly different context) is what I'm looking for. Note that I regularly (and to some controversy, deliberate in the sense that I'm deliberately provoking thought on the subject, and believe that yes, it /does/ come down to that) use the term freedomware and its corresponding slaveryware. The "freedomware" thing is the English version of "libreware", emphasizing "free as in freedom", with the extension being that there's a /very/ /real/ cost, as is unfortunately often the case with freedom. Unfortunately, the "Free" in "Free Software" is simply ambiguous in the English language, where "freedom" lacks that ambiguity. The controversy, however, is generally with the "slaveryware" parallel. Many simply aren't prepared to accept that they are making a choice to continue in bondage, and thus strongly object to that implication, but IMO it's simply stating the obvious, particularly once one accepts the idea of the less contentious "freedomware". I've had some demand that I stop using the term, saying it makes light of what slaves have gone thru over the years. However, upon closer examination, it tends to become quickly apparent that the folks making this argument (even in the FLOSS community, it might be expected in the proprietary/slaveryware community) tend toward the "open source" philosophy -- they use "source available software" simply because it's convenient, and may in fact use "source unavailable or distribution restricted software" where it is convenient to do so as well. Thus, they have trouble comprehending my belief that it's a freedom worth procuring/maintaining even at some cost, and that, as with physical slavery, while I can't with 100% certainty say I'd give my life in a fight to end it, I /can/ say with 100% certainty that ethically/morally, I believe I /should/ be willing to give it, if it indeed came down to that. In point of fact, until the SCO thing and the software-patent defeat in Europe (with another battle forming), it did look quite possible that Freedom Software advocates might ultimately be imprisoned, and I did come to terms with the possibility of having to surrender physical freedom due to a refusal to surrender intellectual/moral freedom, in regard to software. While I'm sure the OSS camp is uncomfortable with that "radicalism", I've yet to see anyone come up with a counterpoint to it. Yet for me it's not just a debating tactic, but what I truly believe and the cost I am willing to pay, and thus, why I deliberately choose to continue using the highly contrasting terms "freedomware" and "slaveryware". It's certainly disappointing to both myself and Stallman, and I'd suppose anyone else taking the libreware viewpoint (even in this context, I have difficulty saying "Free Software" due to the ambiguity), that Linus seems to be more of the "open source" "convenience" view, but that doesn't mean I share Stallman's belief that it should be "GNU/Linux". I suppose that point could be made if it were "FSF/Linux" or some such, but GNU/Linux, where the "GNU" part simply stands for "GNU's Not Unix", doesn't make the point about freedom any more effectively. IMO, the "freedomware" point is entirely separate from the (IMO far less important) branding (or credit) point that GNU/Linux makes. That said, you and the above link make a very good point, that simply "Linux" doesn't convey the "freedom" side of the argument at all. I believe from this point on, you will find in my writing rather fewer references to simply "Linux", and rather more references to "Linux freedomware", or the like, to match the slaveryware/freedomware distinction I'm already making. Thanks for making the point, even if the one I chose to take wasn't quite the one you made. =8^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users