I'd like to make sure my notion of Free Software meshes with other people's... (All "Free" references here are the free-as-in-freedom kind.)
A Java program can be released under the GPL. However, is that Java program Free Software?
To be Free Software, I think it has to be able to built using Free tools and run in a Free environment. (That's my interpretation, at any rate.)
Which, if extrapolated, would mean there is no such thing as free software at all. It requires a processor; all contemporary processors are copyrighted and you can't burn your own. It requires a BIOS to boot the OS; those too are not free and open-source. It requires a video card, and while the actual requirements for a video card are pretty basic, again you can't roll your own. And of course Plucker runs on PalmOS systems, where neither the OS nor the hardware is exactly at the generic commodity stage.
At some point, perhaps further down the road, the quest becomes a futile and pathetic excercise.
Recent messages on the Plucker lists clearly demonstrate that we don't all agree on how free is free enough. I'm a pragmatic; I work in Windows (including at this moment) because that's where the money is, but I write cross-platform code when feasible. Ironically, I'm currently writing code for the iPaq; that's as far from Plucker as you can get! But if it keeps food on the table...
And let's remember that for the vast majority (a really vast majority) of users, Windows was essentially free, certainly a sunk cost (meaning additional usage of it is free), and they're familiar with it. That's so close to free as makes no practical odds, right up there with over-the-air television being "free"; it still has commercials, it costs to broadcast, and televisions aren't free either, but the incremental cost after buying one of watching a favorite show is easily completely overshadowed by the incremental pleasure (enjoyment) you receive.
By that reckoning, can a cross-platform console-based C program be free? Certainly. Python? Technically free, but with associated installation, space, and intimidation costs to computer neophytes (and to people who just don't want more clutter), all of which may be perceived costs by a given individual. What about a Java program? Close enough, if the installer makes Java easy to install, since Sun isn't charging -yet- for it; users have been inured to Java's other costs. An application written in MFC for Windows, if the source is released and binaries are available? Now we're obviously on a slippery slope; the code is free, but it costs money to compile it and it won't work elsewhere... mitigated by the fact that users don't NEED to compile it if binaries are available and by the fact that VC++ is nearly everywhere. But we run into a compatibility issue also... you're tied to Windows, which Microsoft could change at any point.
...but ya see, we already have that problem. Remember that console-based C program at the top of that last paragraph? It won't work on the Palm, it won't run on WinCE, and it wouldn't do anything useful on MacOS systems up until very recently, all for lack of a console. "Hit any key..." only works if the user sees it.
Clinically totally free software is like that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. There's always another hill in the way. For me, open-source is close enough if I like the language, and is what I release. And by writing for (when necessary) non-open OSes, I ensure my geographically-disparate family and other non-technical users can benefit from it. Because my quest isn't an ideological one barring me from touching commercial code, but rather a philosophical leaning that giving functionality to the community, including the non-technical community, is a "good thing".
_______________________________________________ plucker-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-list
