Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 19:24:50 -0600 (CST) From: "Kenneth P. Stox" <stox@imagescape.com> To: Jeremiah Gowdy <data@irev.net> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT - Not a bunch of Message-ID: <XFMail.010107192450.stox@imagescape.com> In-Reply-To: <000b01c07903$6141f830$aa240018@cx443070b>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07-Jan-01 Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
>> > Those sure seem to be compulsions. They are small and simple, but they
> are
>> > compulsions. So even BSD licenced software is not truly "free software"
> by
>> > your foolish definitions.
>>
>> Yes, I guess I am a fool for actually being capable of using a dictionary.
> From
>> the numerous mispellings in your postings, it does seem that you are
^^^^^^^^^^^
Boy is my face red. s/mispellings/misspellings/. Talk about the kettle calling
the pot black. Oh, the shame! I'll stand in the corner with the pointy hat on
now. :-(
> incapable
>> of doing so. My "foolish" definitions are the same used by Richard
> Stallman and
>> Eric S. Raymond. Your definition is consistent with the the one used by
> MSN,
>> $400 free when you agree to spend $24.95/month for three years. I can't
> help it
>> if your understanding of the language is defined by Madison Avenue.
>
> Failing to respond to the fact that your definition of "free software" does
Apparently, you didn't bother the read the entire message, I will quote the
response yet again:
<quote from my previous response>
Arguably, these clauses have become anachronisms, since they were created prior
to the United States joining the Bern Convention. They are restrictions, but
they preserve the freedoms of the authors and prevent others from seizing
rights to the code. These clauses do not limit the user's freedom in using a
distributing the code/binaries, they just insure that the originating authors
do not lose freedom at the same time. Prior to joining the Bern convention, if
this clauses were not asserted, someone could make minor changes to the code
and claim it as their own. Back to definitions again:
1. Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under
restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one's
own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one's
own course of action; not dependent; at liberty.
"Free" does not allow you to impose your restraint, control, or compulsion on
others. This is a delicate balancing act that is the key thesis of what is
really "free." It is this balancing act that most forget in debates over the
meaning of "free," without this balance you have anarchy. Without this balance
I would be free to kill, steal, and rape. Obviously, in a "free" society, I am
not "free" to commit these acts.
</quote from previous response>
> not apply to BSD licenced software, I must assume you are conceeding that
> point, and therefore acknowledging the fact that "free software" is far too
> ambiguous to use in a comparison of software available in Windows or
> FreeBSD. Do you even know what this is about ? This is about someone
> stating that "there is not as much free software for Windows as there is for
> FreeBSD or Linux." Even if WE all understood and agreed to this definition
> as a community, which I'm not really prepared to do so but for the sake of
> argument, this is still a TERRIBLY ambiguous statement to be passing out to
> people who are not part of the FreeBSD/Linux/GNU community. From a Windows
> user point of view, there is PLENTY of free software available for Windows,
> so your statement is going to come across to that person as foolish or
> deceiving. Since the idea of this paper IS advocacy, being deceptive or
> making people think you are lying, even if from your point of view you're
> not, is not a proper way to approach people. Don't you think it would be
> better to say something along the lines of what you've been saying about the
> "freeness" of BSD and/or GPL software over freeware and shareware ?
> Wouldn't that be less ambiguous and more constructive ? If we get back to
> the subject at hand, rather than simply a stupid debate about the definition
> of terms, I think we can come to an agreement.
Now we're getting somewhere. A clear set of statements without insults. I hope
we can now proceed on to some positive results. As I stated previously, "free"
software, by part of your definition ( binary programs that may be loaded at no
apparent cost ), is rarely without cost. An exchange of currency may not be
involved, but exchange of something of value frequently is. It is this very
point that I think we should focus on educating the community. I suspect that
this will be a growing issue, in the awareness of the public, in the not
too distant future. The public thought that Real Networks Jukebox was "free." We
later found it was sending information back to Real Networks. Internet
Explorer is "free," until all competition is vanquished, then I suspect that
will change real quick. In the Windows community, many programs have started
"free" only to later taken commercial. These were not "free," they were a form
of lose leader to build market share. I won't even go into the issues of
malicious and/or virus infected binaries. How much has that cost the community?
Yes, there is "free" software available for the Windows platform, but I would
conject that there is far less than you assume.
So, what this all really boils down to is an issue of public education. The
issue is about the definition of terms and to educate the public what they
really mean. In most cases, the public is being deceived by the use of the
word "free," and we all need to do something about it.
> As for the spelling, I ran a spell checker this time so you wouldn't have to
> degrade yourself to making personal attacks based on spelling mistakes.
Well, thank you, but if I was afraid of making an idiot of myself, I would
never post to these mailing lists. ;->
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.010107192450.stox>