Le dimanche 13 décembre 2015 à 01:59 +0000, Mychaela Falconia a écrit : > Paul Kocialkowski <cont...@paulk.fr> wrote: > > > Well, I guess "not approved" is a bit far fetched here. International > > versions are still approved by all regulatory standards required for > > sale and use with public mobile telephony networks in the US. > > I don't give a damn about regulatory approval. They are not > *socially* approved, which is what matters.
That may be the way you understand it, but that's not how this term is usually understood. Once again, I think such statements will mislead most people. I'm all for having outside-the-box ideas and positions, but they have to be somewhat clearly explained if you expect people to understand what you mean. > > Please stop saying that your modem firmware is free software. > > No, I will not stop. Very same idea here: you're saying one thing with words that mean different things to other people. Either you don't really want to talk to them if they don't already share your positions (and don't assume these words to have the meaning *you* give them), either you're actively trying to confuse people into helping your project. I've never had to deal with that situation before, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with someone confusing people into believing that their project is free software when it is not, due to the absence of legal ground. I'd have to think about what is the right thing to do here, but bear in mind that I'm administrating this list and that some behaviour is not really welcome. And this is not even closely related to your views, simply about the language you use. I'd love to live in a world where free software would be defined only by the ideas carried by the concept, with no legal ground as that would be unnecessary or obsolete. But this is not the world we live in and right now, and in practice, your software fits the description of proprietary software, not free software. Before I decide whether to take a drastic decision here, I could systematically answer your emails with a very agressive text warning users that your software is proprietary by definition and that it's hurting development of free software alternatives, which is all factually correct. I have instead chosen to talk about it with you, as non-agressive way to ask you to reconsider. > > It is not, by the very definition of free software. > > By *your* definition of free sw. But you are not the exclusive owner > of the English language with an exclusive franchise on defining the > meaning of terms. You and RMS/FSF have chosen to define "free sw" in > a very hypocritical way, and I reject your definition. I shall > continue using my own definition instead. I'm afraid that's not how language works. When a term or an expression, (that was coined decades ago) has a meaning you don't find appropriate to suit your ideas, just don't use it. Trying to take the expression describing the closest-related idea and pretending it is just as legitimate to use it to reflect your views simply doesn't work, because you'll only confuse people, who are of course used to understanding the expression in it usual sense. You are making yourself a huge disservice when doing this, communication-wise, and confusing people. Unless, of course, you are actively trying to do this in order to get them to support your project. -- Paul Kocialkowski, Replicant developer Replicant is a fully free Android distribution running on several devices, a free software mobile operating system putting the emphasis on freedom and privacy/security. Website: https://www.replicant.us/ Blog: https://blog.replicant.us/ Wiki/tracker/forums: https://redmine.replicant.us/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Replicant mailing list Replicant@lists.osuosl.org http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
