Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 01:48:03 -0600 (CST) From: Ken Stox <stox@enteract.com> To: Jeremiah Gowdy <jgowdy@home.com> Cc: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, lan@irev.net Subject: Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT - Not a bunch of licence Jihad crap Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101070035120.2029-100000@shell-3.enteract.com> In-Reply-To: <001801c0786c$e5d55b60$aa240018@cx443070b>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<ANTI_PROTON BEAM>
I found this message to be so off base, that I felt it necessary to
reply. I hope the original author wil not mind.
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
> Claiming that software isn't "free" because it's not valuable is redefining
> the word "free" to mean something that has no cost, yet has value.
>
> free (fr) adj. Costing nothing; gratuitous:
>
> The word has absolutely nothing to do with your value judgements. Useful !=
> Free. No cost == Free.
[ The dict command is your friend ]
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.
2. Not under an arbitrary or despotic government; subject
only to fixed laws regularly and fairly administered, and
defended by them from encroachments upon natural or
acquired rights; enjoying political liberty.
>
> > We already have a term for software that just costs no money: "freeware".
> > This is _NOT_ free software. Shareware is not free software. GPLed,
> BSDed,
> > X11ed, public domain, APSLed (ad infinitum) code is free software, the
> kind
> > that is not often written for Windows.
I would agree with this statement fully in the case of BSD and X11. The
other cases do not fulfill the definition of "free." GPL is not free,
although it approaches it. GPL, APSL, etc. are subject to the will of the
authors.
> You're idioticly redefining the term "free" to be software with source code
> and restrictions, rather than no source code and no restrictions. You can't
> define the language. Free doesn't have a damned thing to do with your value
> judgements on what's useful, what's "no-value", whether or not it includes
> source, and whether or not it travels under the restrictions of your "free"
> licence. You're saying that the only "free" software is open-source
> software, and that's a pretty damned closed minded point of view. I've
I'm afraid you are the victim of a "pretty damned closed minded point of
view." "Free" binaries are under the restraint, control, and compulsion of
the author. the user is unable to determine the course of action. If I
cannot freely change the function of a program, it is not "free". If I
must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not
"free." I am being compelled to perform. This is not "free."
> written hundreds of DOS and Windows applications, which are FREE, although I
> didn't include the source code with them. Your massive generalization that
> most Windows software is not "free" (by your foolish definition), that most
> of it is "no-value", and that "freeware" does not equal "free software"
> (instead "open source" = "free software"), is all terribly insulting to
> someone who's written free software for DOS and Windows for years. Who the
> hell are you to say that my software isn't free and isn't useful just
See clues #1 and #2 above.
By your definition of "free", No cost == Free. I would contend that there
is NO SUCH thing. It costs money to download software, it costs money to
install software, and it costs money to maintain software. In fact, in
most cases, these costs exceed the cost of purchasing software from
commercial companies.
> because it isn't open source ? Certainly, open source is preferrable, but
> you can't start redefining words like "free" to push your rabid open source
> agenda. The people of the past who contributed their software to the scene
> in the form of public domain, freeware, and shareware were writing code in
> the same spirit as those of us who write open source code today. So why
> don't you get off your goddamned high horse and stop belittling the "free"
> software for other platforms simply because it doesn't comply with your open
> source jihad bullshit.
BSD/X11 Open Source is about the only truly "free" software around.
Binaries have many hidden costs. Freeware is a great thing, but it is not
truly "free." BTW, I should mention that I have written and contributed to
a great deal of freeware over the years. But any freeware I have written
has been under my control. I have the source. It is not free in the truest
form of the word. The ones I did release, the source to the public domain
to, are truly free. It has been a wonderful experience to see what they
matured into years later.
> I'm not anti-open source in the slightest, but I won't have my work, and the
> work of millions of other DOS and Windows programmers over YEARS, belittled
> by some asshole who can't look up the word "free" in the dictionary.
Hmmm, I suggest you look up "free" in the dictionary.
</ANTI_PROTON BEAM>
And now, back to our originally scheduled program, "The Golden Age of
Ballooning."
-Ken Stox
stox@imagescape.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0101070035120.2029-100000>