Re: freeware != free software??? Re: Navigation
a) the group free software is nothing but a combination of an adjective and a substantive, the adjective qualifying the substantive That might be the case, but in the context of distributing a piece of software in the context of GNU/Linux, free software refers to the FSF's notion. Any other use is a misuse, Stefan ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: freeware != free software??? Re: Navigation
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, arne anka wrote: [Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:] I think you're now confusing free software with freeware. Free software app has to be open source (but not in opposite way - freeware and open source apps not always are free software) huh? since when and who made that decision? for all i know, the line goes between open source and free. open source has not to be free and free has not to be open source. to signify what you have in mind, the term foss was coined. and just the need to add f signifies that free is not open source per se (and vice versa of course). Remember, in free software term free means freedom, not free beer (as in freeware) :P that is only _one_ meaning. as human language goes, the very same word might have a lot of meanings -- depending on context, speaker, time or place. for the sake of record keeping (and because i think it's an important distinction, though i accept that others disagree): the term free software was coined in or before 1989, when the GPLv1 was published by the free software foundation [1]. it quite clearly embedded the definition of free that sebastian refers to when it said: When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Specifically, the General Public License is designed to make sure that you have the freedom to give away or sell copies of free software, that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. . the term free software may well have been in use before then, but it was set in stone by 1989. the term open source was coined in early 1998 [2], nearly a decade later, by a group of people who _inter alia_ objected to the ambiguous meaning of free in ordinary english. FLOSS and FOSS were terms coined later, off the back of the term open source. it's true that english is still ambiguous in its definition of free, but it's not fair to say that free software is an ambiguous term. it has been precisely defined for over 20 years, long before the term open source was coined. when sebastian speaks of free software, i think he's right to impute the FSF's definition of freedon to it. please by all means use the terms open source, FOSS, FLOSS and so on if you find they help crystallise your thinking, but arne, whilst i hugely admire your software chops and appreciate the work you've done, i think you're wrong to insist that others join you because you think free software means only free as in beer. hopefully i'm not offending anyone by jumping in with a bit of history! -- Tom Yates - http://www.teaparty.net [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-1.0.txt [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source : The decision by some people in the free software movement to use the label “open source” came out of a strategy session held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator.___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: freeware != free software??? Re: Navigation
the term free software was coined in or before 1989, when the GPLv1 was published by the free software foundation [1]. a) the group free software is nothing but a combination of an adjective and a substantive, the adjective qualifying the substantive b) qualifying a substantive with free has been in use long before the creation of software c) free software is in no way an unique term or used uniquely by the FSF -- the sentence you are quoting very clearly proves that by saying When we speak of free software ie, the term is used in a certain sense in a certain context (the GPL) -- but there's no way, the GPL is globally applicable ot the authors are in any way authorized to rule the use of those very common and widely used words in a very common grammatical construction. to conclude the discussion: sebastian would be right _only_ if somewhere in the discussion all participants had agreed to put the software in question under the GPL or at least use the GPL's definition. i can't recall, that has ever happend -- insofar any claim to use the GPL's definition as the solely applicable one is not justified! it is understandable to think in the trems of the GPL but it is not the only way to think. thus, if any author claims his/her software to be free software, he/she is entitled to it -- only if he/she accepted the GPL's definition as the binding definition of the term, his/her software has to meet the requirements laid down in the GPL. but arne, whilst i hugely admire your software chops and appreciate the work you've done, i don't know, what exactly you are talking about, but thanks anyway :-) i think you're wrong to insist that others join you because you think free software means only free as in beer. i don't. as i hopefully made clear, i think the meaning of free (or free software) has to be defined before accusing somebody of misuse and that definition was (and is) still lacking. free might be as in beer or speech or nothing to do (and those of us coming from eg the former communist parts of europe, will remember that not only the meaning of free might differ but even the extend involved), but that is not clear beforehand and certainly not implicit, even if most of us tend to think in therms of the GPL. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: freeware != free software??? Re: Navigation
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 01:21:50PM +0100, arne anka wrote: the term free software was coined in or before 1989, when the GPLv1 was published by the free software foundation [1]. a) the group free software is nothing but a combination of an adjective and a substantive, the adjective qualifying the substantive b) qualifying a substantive with free has been in use long before the creation of software c) free software is in no way an unique term or used uniquely by the FSF -- the sentence you are quoting very clearly proves that by saying When we speak of free software ie, the term is used in a certain sense in a certain context (the GPL) -- but there's no way, the GPL is globally applicable ot the authors are in any way authorized to rule the use of those very common and widely used words in a very common grammatical construction. Qualifying a substantive with free is far older yes, but that is not a point, nor is a) a point. c) may be a point but they're really just bringing clearity cause the word is fuzzy. to conclude the discussion: sebastian would be right _only_ if somewhere in the discussion all participants had agreed to put the software in question under the GPL or at least use the GPL's definition. i can't recall, that has ever happend -- insofar any claim to use the GPL's definition as the solely applicable one is not justified! If one is to be used then that one should be used. Ethymologically that is right, but also the other usage of the word isn't really widely spread nor accepted by many today, it also makes no sense. it is understandable to think in the trems of the GPL but it is not the only way to think. thus, if any author claims his/her software to be free software, he/she is entitled to it -- only if he/she accepted the GPL's definition as the binding definition of the term, his/her software has to meet the requirements laid down in the GPL. GPL is not the only free license. Furthermore, if you by using the term free software to describe software that is not free but gratis, you have misused the word haven't you? but arne, whilst i hugely admire your software chops and appreciate the work you've done, i don't know, what exactly you are talking about, but thanks anyway :-) i think you're wrong to insist that others join you because you think free software means only free as in beer. i don't. as i hopefully made clear, i think the meaning of free (or free software) has to be defined before accusing somebody of misuse and that definition was (and is) still lacking. free might be as in beer or speech or nothing to do (and those of us coming from eg the former communist parts of europe, will remember that not only the meaning of free might differ but even the extend involved), but that is not clear beforehand and certainly not implicit, even if most of us tend to think in therms of the GPL. Yes free may be interpreted as free of duties (which i belive is what you meant with nothing to do) however interpreteing it as free of charge is still not a very good thing cause it breaks the definition of free. Because free is such a fuzzy word, mainly due to misusage of the word one can use the words libre or gratis to distinguish them. Open source is however not the same as FLOSS or Free/Libre Software. The Open Source Movement have instead choosen to abandom the ethical principle of freedom and only promote the use of Open Source software that might not be libre (free as in freedom), which is not the same idea as the Free Software movement has. For the Free Software movement the idea of Free/Libre Software is that it should be free as in freedom. Not just open for anyone to examine as is the case with Open Source. And mainly because there is such a large movement of Free Software (free as in freedom) and the usage of free while in the discussion of software the usage of the word free in regards to software is in any case but the term Freeware analogous with libre software. And you know what? Free as used in free of charge often can be intepreted as you are free to do whatever you want to do with it, not only that it is gratis. If i have a free soda pop for you, then you can use it for whatever, even give it away to someone else.. for if i attached criterias for why it is gratis then would it still be free? Please clean up your own language usage to avoid things like this, it is tedious to have to be carefull about the word free is applied only because people do not consider their own language usage or the consistancy in their language. /end of arrogant rant about language usage. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: freeware != free software??? Re: Navigation
/end of arrogant rant about language usage. this is getting too long for me :) just download the relevant packages which this thread started about and read license in there, it might help your understanding :)) cheers Petr ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: freeware != free software??? Re: Navigation
2010/1/5 Viktor Lindberg l...@leth.yi.org: The Open Source Movement have instead choosen to abandom the ethical principle of freedom and only promote the use of Open Source software that might not be libre (free as in freedom), which is not the same idea as the Free Software movement has. [...] Not just open for anyone to examine as is the case with Open Source. FWIW, that is not my understanding. I believe that the practical requirements of Open Source and Free Software are mostly identical. The difference is one of philosophical emphasis: the Open Source movement chooses to emphasize practical and tangible benefits from using and working on their projects, whereas the Free Software movement emphasizes freedom, even if it means working in the short term with an inferior product. I hope that's useful to someone (and correct!) ... Neil ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: freeware != free software??? Re: Navigation
Since this is a mailinglist about openmoko's «free»runner, I think it's normal to assume everyone on this mailinglist understands the idea behind the free philosophy. On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 16:09 +0100, Viktor Lindberg wrote: On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 01:21:50PM +0100, arne anka wrote: the term free software was coined in or before 1989, when the GPLv1 was published by the free software foundation [1]. a) the group free software is nothing but a combination of an adjective and a substantive, the adjective qualifying the substantive b) qualifying a substantive with free has been in use long before the creation of software c) free software is in no way an unique term or used uniquely by the FSF -- the sentence you are quoting very clearly proves that by saying When we speak of free software ie, the term is used in a certain sense in a certain context (the GPL) -- but there's no way, the GPL is globally applicable ot the authors are in any way authorized to rule the use of those very common and widely used words in a very common grammatical construction. Qualifying a substantive with free is far older yes, but that is not a point, nor is a) a point. c) may be a point but they're really just bringing clearity cause the word is fuzzy. to conclude the discussion: sebastian would be right _only_ if somewhere in the discussion all participants had agreed to put the software in question under the GPL or at least use the GPL's definition. i can't recall, that has ever happend -- insofar any claim to use the GPL's definition as the solely applicable one is not justified! If one is to be used then that one should be used. Ethymologically that is right, but also the other usage of the word isn't really widely spread nor accepted by many today, it also makes no sense. it is understandable to think in the trems of the GPL but it is not the only way to think. thus, if any author claims his/her software to be free software, he/she is entitled to it -- only if he/she accepted the GPL's definition as the binding definition of the term, his/her software has to meet the requirements laid down in the GPL. GPL is not the only free license. Furthermore, if you by using the term free software to describe software that is not free but gratis, you have misused the word haven't you? but arne, whilst i hugely admire your software chops and appreciate the work you've done, i don't know, what exactly you are talking about, but thanks anyway :-) i think you're wrong to insist that others join you because you think free software means only free as in beer. i don't. as i hopefully made clear, i think the meaning of free (or free software) has to be defined before accusing somebody of misuse and that definition was (and is) still lacking. free might be as in beer or speech or nothing to do (and those of us coming from eg the former communist parts of europe, will remember that not only the meaning of free might differ but even the extend involved), but that is not clear beforehand and certainly not implicit, even if most of us tend to think in therms of the GPL. Yes free may be interpreted as free of duties (which i belive is what you meant with nothing to do) however interpreteing it as free of charge is still not a very good thing cause it breaks the definition of free. Because free is such a fuzzy word, mainly due to misusage of the word one can use the words libre or gratis to distinguish them. Open source is however not the same as FLOSS or Free/Libre Software. The Open Source Movement have instead choosen to abandom the ethical principle of freedom and only promote the use of Open Source software that might not be libre (free as in freedom), which is not the same idea as the Free Software movement has. For the Free Software movement the idea of Free/Libre Software is that it should be free as in freedom. Not just open for anyone to examine as is the case with Open Source. And mainly because there is such a large movement of Free Software (free as in freedom) and the usage of free while in the discussion of software the usage of the word free in regards to software is in any case but the term Freeware analogous with libre software. And you know what? Free as used in free of charge often can be intepreted as you are free to do whatever you want to do with it, not only that it is gratis. If i have a free soda pop for you, then you can use it for whatever, even give it away to someone else.. for if i attached criterias for why it is gratis then would it still be free? Please clean up your own language usage to avoid things like this, it is tedious to have to be carefull about the word free is applied only because people do not consider their own language usage or the consistancy in their language. /end of arrogant rant about language
Re: freeware != free software??? Re: Navigation
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 03:39:42PM +, Neil Jerram wrote: 2010/1/5 Viktor Lindberg l...@leth.yi.org: The Open Source Movement have instead choosen to abandom the ethical principle of freedom and only promote the use of Open Source software that might not be libre (free as in freedom), which is not the same idea as the Free Software movement has. [...] Not just open for anyone to examine as is the case with Open Source. FWIW, that is not my understanding. I believe that the practical requirements of Open Source and Free Software are mostly identical. The difference is one of philosophical emphasis: the Open Source movement chooses to emphasize practical and tangible benefits from using and working on their projects, whereas the Free Software movement emphasizes freedom, even if it means working in the short term with an inferior product. I don't wish to be rude but you're not actually contradicting anything i'm saying afaict thought you are putting the words diffrently to emphasis that Open Source would have a better technical solution, i'm not sure that is the case, it might be true to some extent yes. But when you have virtues and value ethics highly you might have to avoid certain methods which you consider evil to some extent. And frankly to use any GNU/Linux distribution as an example, Free Software is not that technically inferior. In fact most GNU/Linux systems are have a much higher rate of free software as part of the system then non free open source software. There are even distributions that have strict policies agains including non free software that works perfectly well with perhaps the small exceptions of some few hardware drivers, in this case you can just avoid buying hardware from vendors who completle ignores the call for free software. Not to forget OpenBSD which is 100% Free Software and is renown for being a really good technical solution. Yes it is true that the Open Source movement likes to focus on the technical advantages of Open Source Software, but it's not true to say that good technical solution is ignored by the Free Software movement. However the big diffrence lies as you said in the philosophical part, that ethical apsects of software freedom, thus somtimes the Free Software movement is sometimes happy with a suboptimal solution for the sake of moral issues. (in my case i consider linux a subotpimal technical solution, but it allows for me to run a fully free OS) I hope that's useful to someone (and correct!) ... Neil ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: freeware != free software??? Re: Navigation
2010/1/5 Viktor Lindberg l...@leth.yi.org: I don't wish to be rude but you're not actually contradicting anything i'm saying afaict Actually I think I am a bit. You said Not just open for anyone to examine as is the case with Open Source, which sounds to me like you are saying that people cannot modify or redistribute Open Source code. But in fact they can, according to every OSI-approved license that I've heard of. thought you are putting the words diffrently to emphasis that Open Source would have a better technical solution, i'm not sure that is the case, it might be true to some extent yes. It sounds like you think that I'm supporting the Open Source point of view. I'm not; I was just trying to describe the philosophical difference as clearly as possible. As it happens, I strongly prefer the Free Software point of view - and I completely agree with what you write next: But when you have virtues and value ethics highly you might have to avoid certain methods which you consider evil to some extent. And frankly to use any GNU/Linux distribution as an example, Free Software is not that technically inferior. [...] Yes it is true that the Open Source movement likes to focus on the technical advantages of Open Source Software, but it's not true to say that good technical solution is ignored by the Free Software movement. Well I certainly hope not, given that I've been working (on and off) on a FSF project for more than 10 years now... :-) Best wishes, Neil ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
