Re: [fsf-community-team] A first exercise

[Holmes Wilson]

> > > *CNet blog Network* writer Dennis O'Reilly makes several erroneous
> > > statements in his 20 Oct 2009
> > > article<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13880_3-10378605-68.html>  titled
> > > 'Finding the Catch in Free Software'. Most glaring among his
> > mis-statements
> > > is:
> > >> The GNU GPL stipulates that the software can be used, copied, and
> > >> distributed verbatim without limitation, though it cannot be changed.
> > >
> > > The guy claims to have been writing about tech since 1985,&  will
> > > presumably continue writing for some time. Would FSF be interested in
> > > undertaking an effort to improve O'Reilly's understanding of FLOSS?
> > >
> It seems like he is advocating for download.com and oss. He seems to
> realise that 'free' does not mean that free software necessarily costs
> nothing;
...
> As far as strategy goes to address this article, I reckon that the issue
> is one of hegemony:
...
> I hope what I've written makes sense. Please tell me if it does not.

I think this all makes sense, but what we're looking for is a response 
we can send to the writer himself.  So we want something in that format. 
 And it's more important to correct the mistakes than to diagnose the 
submerged cultural biases (hegemony) that lead to them.

The points I would include in a comment and a message to the author are:

* Most tech-savvy people, when they use the phrase "free software", 
refer to software that gives users the freedom to use, understand and 
modify, redistribute, and improve it.  The term has a similar technical 
meaning to "open source", but politically it keeps the focus on freedom. 
 As a technical term, "free software" has nothing to do with the cost 
of the software.  It's about freedom, not price.

* It's pretty shocking that a technology journalist would be completely 
unaware of this distinction.  Please take some time to read up on the 
history of free software, or you risk confusing your readers on an issue 
that's vital to the future of technology and society!

* In terms of deciding whether to trust the offer of software with a $0 
price tag, people need to know that free (as in freedom) software will 
*always* be more trustworthy, since it can be reviewed by everyone, and 
since if the company making it did something nasty (like adding spyware, 
adware, or features only available in a paid version) then somebody 
somewhere would have changed it already and published their own version.

* Also, you've got the meaning of the GNU GPL horribly mixed up a number 
of points:

1) It's a mistake to say that the GNU GPL "differs from that of open 
source software".  Software under the GNU GPL *is* considered "open 
source" software under the definition you site.  The difference between 
"free software" and "open source" is one of political emphasis, get it?

2) The license gives you explicit permission to change the software 
(that's one of the important freedoms that free software gives you!). 
The license just doesn't give you permission to change *the license*... 
since then somebody could take free GNU GPL licensed code and use it to 
make proprietary software.

3) It's wrong to say "you can usually get the source code of programs 
that adhere to the GNU GPL".  You can *always* get the source code of 
these programs, unless the program hasn't been published (and that's not 
what you're talking about here) or the publisher is failing to adhere to 
the license.




> --
> "Więcej kondomów, mniej poligonów!" - Big Cyc