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

[Mathieu Roy]

Terry Hancock <address@hidden> said:

> 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

I think that there are as many users of "open source" software that do
not even now what is OSD than "linux" users that do not even now what
is GNU.

Note that proprietary licenses with "open source" within their name
exist. 



> > > 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.

Myself, I think that the nature of actions is the result of the words
picked. 


> > 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.

Starting this discussion here is purposeless. Aren't you the
outrageaously dogmatic one, that comes on the GNU project mailing-list
trying to convince people here, that mostly have obviously already set
their opinion on that topic?

I stand for I think is right, and that attitude does not fit
dogmatism. I let you live as you want to. But if you want to do a work
with me, you'll have to accept to respect things that matters to me
and I'll do the same for you. 


> 
> >   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?

I do not consider the term "free software" perfect, because this both
words are polysemic.

Polysemic words need a context to be understand ; when you use 
these terms, you just have to make clear what is the context. I think
it's possible to handle that.


> 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!

Please, use only quotes to quote me. I never said you are an ennemy.
Do not invent my words.


-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
    http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
    http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english