[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 14:13, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-09-23 00:45:52 +0100 Andrew Saunders <syntaxis@gmx.co.uk> 
> wrote:
> > [2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I 
> > personally
> > believe that, Invariant sections or no, the term "Open Source" will
> > *still* be more widespread,
> Do you have numbers to back the claim that it is more widespread?  I 
> thought only English had the free/free ambiguity enough to create a 
> market for the more ambiguous term "open source".  I know that the 
> damned term is being imported into other languages, sadly, but I 
> didn't think it had got to the point of majority yet!
> If you have no such data, please refrain from that claim.  It borders 
> on trolling, given your to-list.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22free+software%22 - 4,840,000 hits.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22open+source%22 - 7,210,000 hits.

And I'm pretty sure "free software" is used a lot more than "open
source" in documents that have zero to do with free software or open
source, in the sense of this discussion.

And completely anecdotal, I'm the only person I know of that uses "free
software" around here (University of Minnesota). All the professors use
"open source" (or rarely, "public software", "freeware", or some other
term), as do my friends and classmates.
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: