FW: [DotGNU]PHILOSOPHY file

[Jerry Walter]

        I have been reading this whole thread with curiosity. Why do you
need a separate file for this? What happened to the readme, copyright, etc
files that seem to be delivered as a standard with most packages. By putting
it in a separate file and making a point of it, you are just fueling the
flames, and pointing out that you are the one supplying the gasoline. If
someone can not read this in one of the standard delivered files, then it is
their fault.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Carrera [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 5:12 PM
To: John
Cc: Silvernerd; DotGNU developers mailinglist
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]PHILOSOPHY file


Free Software and Open Source Software *are* the same thing.
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html)

It is the movement philosophies that differ, not the software licensing.

Also, in the PHILOSOPHY file, I would suggest using the terms "Liberated"
and "Software Freedom" whenever possible.  These carry all the meaning of
"Free Software" without the ambiguity.

Best,
Daniel.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, John wrote:

> I agree with the idea of a PHILOSOPHY file.
>
> The point would be better made between Free/Liberated and Open Source.
> We both have our source open, but because F/L code is copyleft the
> license makes a moral distinction that to share in our code; one must
> share back. Too often Open Source licenses do not require or enforce
> that sharing. All Liberated source is Open Source, but not all Open
> Source is Liberated.
>
>
> John Le'Brecage
> =================
> What is copyleft? Copyleft says, "Don't be a pig. If you take, you must
> give."
>
>
> Daniel Carrera wrote:
> >
> > I think that it's a good idea, but I request that you not bash Open
> > Source.  They are allies, not enemies.  Also, mention that Open Source
> > SOFTWARE is the same as Free Software (the Open Source Definition is a
> > copy of the Debian Free Software Guidelines).
> >
> > RMS posted on this list just a while ago.  That email would be a good
> > start for the PHILOSOPHY file.  I would only add a distinction between
the
> > ideologies and the software.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents.
> >
> > Best,
> > Daniel.
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Silvernerd wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everybody,
> > >
> > > would it be a good idea if we would attach a 'PHILOSOPHY' file to the
> > > programs?
> > >
> > > My idea is that such a philosophy file would contain a notice saying
> > > 'this is Free Software NOT Open Source software' and an short
> > > explanation of the differences between the two.
> > >
> > > Also such a file could contain information about the philosophy behind
> > > the specific DotGNU program, the philosophy behind the DotGNU project
> > > (AKA why we do this) and an introduction of the GNU project and
> > > FreeDevelopers. And of course it should contain links to related
> > > webpages.
> > >
> > > Such a file could make more users aware of the true meaning of free
> > > software and could rally support for us. This will be especially
useful
> > > once we start supporting the Win and Mac platforms since the users
there
> > > usually don't even know of the existence of Free Software and Open
> > > Source. And if our stuff gets used in uni's then the file could get
the
> > > students enthusiastic.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Developers mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
>

_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
address@hidden
http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers