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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 01:08, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org> a tapoté :
> > 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.
> I still did not get the point. Many many people seems to enjoy Britney
> Spears. Does it mean that Britney Spears is wonderful?

Musical (or other) tastes are almost entirely matters of opinion.

> Many people around me call the system we are using "Linux" while none
> of us would be able to truly make the difference if we were using

The proper English construction here is "tell the difference" -- and I'm
sure many of us, those of us familiar with kernel design, could tell the

> another kernel with our GNU system, in most of the cases.
> Many people in France thinks that Republic is something heavily linked
> to Democracy, despite the fact the Republic model was clearly an
> oligarchy. 
> Something can be popular and also completely wrong.

If you would have read the thread, or my opinions on 'open source'
versus 'free software' (consider this an exercise in Googling), you
would know *I agree with you*, and so you didn't need to write a bunch
of embarassingly stupid and incorrect examples.

"Open source" is a terrible term, and the Open Source Movement's message
seems to be drowning out the Free Software Movement's, insofar as there
is an organized "movement" for either group (it would be more correct to
say that the pragmatic side of free software is being overhyped, and the
ethical side is being ignored, leading to less free software and more
"almost-free" software).

On the other hand, I don't think publishing non-free software
(especially *bad* non-free software, see the comments about the crappy
editorial style of the Emacs manual in the archive) to promote free
software is justifiable ethically, or logically. Nor do I think that
anyone will read The GNU Manifesto just because it's included in their
manual (especially since it was included anyway before, and they didn't
read it).

So invariant sections are a failure both philosophically and
pragmatically, which is typical of non-free things.
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

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

Reply to: