Re: freeware != free software??? Re: Navigation

2010-01-06 Thread Stefan Monnier
 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


freeware != free software??? Re: Navigation

2010-01-05 Thread arne anka
 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.


___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community


Re: freeware != free software??? Re: Navigation

2010-01-05 Thread Tom Yates

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

2010-01-05 Thread arne anka
 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

2010-01-05 Thread Viktor Lindberg
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

2010-01-05 Thread Petr Vanek
/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

2010-01-05 Thread Neil Jerram
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

2010-01-05 Thread Pieter Colpaert
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

2010-01-05 Thread Viktor Lindberg
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

2010-01-05 Thread Neil Jerram
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