Re: [Fsfe-uk] Liberated software

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-10-10 15:20:12 +0100 Chris Croughton <address@hidden> 
wrote:

[...]
> Picking out one of those meanings and saying "this is what the word
> shall now mean and nothing else" is doomed to failure. [...]

Just as well that's not what we're doing, then. Free has many 
meanings; software has at least two; we want to communicate what we 
mean by "free software" - a typical marketing problem. Rebranding has 
been tried and failed, IMO, so let's be more creative next time.

> GPL => FS and OSS
> FS  => OSS [...]

Can software that requires users to hold software patent licences in 
the US be regarded as "open source" in the US by OSI? If so, the 
second statement is false.

> Was the intent ever that FS == OSS?

Yes. The following quaint claim is still in the OSI FAQ:
 How is "open source" related to "free software"?
 The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software.

As you may know, I think that's not what's happened. If they wanted 
just to be a marketing programme, the term should have been abandoned 
once it was clear the trademark initiative had failed. By the way, 
RMS's view is at 
http://gnu.hands.com/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

--
MJR/slef    My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
 Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Speaking at ESF on Sat 16 Oct - http://www.affs.org.uk/