[Savannah-hackers] Re: no free beer, sorry [was: submission of Narya Forum and Project Incubator]

[Terry Hancock]

On Thursday 25 September 2003 10:15 am, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Terry Hancock <address@hidden> said:
> > If the source isn't open, it can't be free, and if it isn't free, then the
> > source isn't open.
> 
> This is wrong statement. In many cases you can get access to
> proprietary software source code. But you cannot do what you may want
> with. 

No one uses the term "open source" to mean this.  Go read
the OSD, the OSI folks certainly never mean this.  If you have
to agree to restrictive licensing, then it's not open -- "open"
means "generally available", not "available if you sign on the
dotted line."

This is the "specious" part.

> > Sorry.  I withdraw my request.  I am not so desperate for a
> > CVS server that I must submit to ideological tyranny to get
> > it.
> 
> It is the wisest choice. Savannah is not free-beer, it's dedicated to
> people that want to make Free Software as defined by the GNU project,
> and helping the GNU project philosophical approach.

Our differences are purely linguistic, philosophy doesn't really enter
into it.  Myself, I think actions speak louder than words.

By your definition, my project is and always will be "Free Software" -- I
do not object to *you* calling it that (*I* know what you mean, even
if very few people outside your little circle do).  I, however, need to be
more clear to a broader audience.  This is largely because my target
audiences are not just "hackers", but a much larger group of people
who could benefit from this kind of concept: engineers, scientists,
artists, and lots of other folks.  People for whom this whole
"free as in beer" thing of yours has all the relevance of "Tastes great!"
versus "Less filling!".

> A little help to this approach is to use the term Free Software.

No.  It is a hazard.  Don't believe me?  Read this post in which I
was *corrected* on it's meaning. You will note that all your PR has
done is to successfully convince outsiders that there is indeed a
difference between "open source" and "free software" -- but guess
what he thinks you represent?

http://forums.keenspot.com/viewtopic.php?t=56718&start=22

This is not the only time I have encountered this.  Just a glaring
recent example.  Other than people who are essentially already
sold on the idea (and for them, who cares what it's called?), NO ONE
understands what you mean!

Your insisting on a foolishly derived term which has a clear interpretation
contrary to your intent, is a major drag on THE movement
to produce software with free-licensing.  Like it or not, you *and* those
who like to use "open source" are in the same movement.  And you
are right to understand that I am more interested in the success
of that movement as a whole, than in your status within it.

You will actually find both terms in use on my site. I say there also 
that I believe the distinction to be a false one, but I even go so far
as to reference your dissenting opinion on this point -- which I think
is extremely fair of me, considering your outrageous dogmatism.

> If this help is something you cannot offer, why looking at GNU project
> services?

Well, when you said you wanted to promote "free software", I
assumed you meant the *software* that is free-licensed, not the
*phrase*.  Silly of me, I guess.

> You are completely free to benefit from our help if you want to help
> us. If you don't, well, what's the problem? 

And there's the "factious" part.

>   Not a native english speaker: 

Well, this makes your lack of understanding of the problem with
the phrase more forgiveable, but it fails to clear you of thinking you
know my own language better than I do. ;-)

As you can see, my contact in the forum above *did* understand
what "open-source" was.  He naturally and immediately understands
it to mean exactly what you want him to think "Free Software"
means, while he thinks "Free Software" means exactly what it is
natural to assume in English: "software that costs nothing".

Consider the meaning of the word "ware":
"""
Articles of merchandise; the sum of articles of a particular
kind or class; style or class of manufactures; especially, in
the plural, goods; commodities; merchandise.
"""
(this from "dict" and the Webster's 1913/Revised that is standard
with many Gnu/Linux dists).

Now tell me again why you think the assumption of the meaning
"zero cost" is some failing of English?  How it means we must all
place commerce above high-ideals like freedom?  Couldn't
it just be that that's the only sensible way such a concept could
be applied to "an article of merchandise which happens to
be intangible", which is what "soft + ware" really means?

The real irony, is that I don't think we have *philosophical*
disagreements:  We both think free-licensing is important.  We
agree on what it means, what constitutes a free-license, and
what its consequences are, and we both think they're a really
good idea.   Nevertheless, you're happy to brand me the
"enemy", not because I don't use your phrase (however flawed
it may be, I still do), but because it's not the *only* phrase I use!

Which is a pity.  Because it really doesn't make any sense for
you to do that.  But you're right about one thing -- it's clear I
won't be served by hosting the project here.

Terry

--
Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com )
Anansi Spaceworks  http://www.anansispaceworks.com