Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:23:21PM -0400, Doug wrote:
>
>
> On 09/30/2015 07:37 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> /snip/
> >
> >The letter of the law my dear Shylock, the letter.
> >
> >But in spirit, Open Source and Free Software couldn't be more different.
> >The one is about a more efficient software production model, the other
> >about the user's rights.
> >
> >But such "spirit" things are difficult to grasp at times :-)
> >
> >In practice, and technically, most Open Source software is Free, and all
> >Free Software is Open Source. But watch those folks in a corporate
> >environment awkwardly avoiding the F word -- or read Bruce Perens, one
> >of those who coined Open Source writing that in hindsight it may have
> >been a mistake to realize that the people behind those flavors are
> >quite different.
>
> This whole (OT) discussion perverts the meaning of the word "free."*
> In common usage, the word "free" means you do not have to pay money for it.
Language is ambiguous. You've to use the context and other hints to
understand your interlocutor. OTOH...
> Therefore, the example given above is incorrect: all free software is NOT
> open source: Firefox and Thunderbird are prime examples of free software
> which is not open source that probably most users of Linux are using today.
> They[re _free_ becasue you didn't have to pay for it. simple as that.
...you can play language games and knowingly ignore those hints (note
that I wrote "Free Software": given the context that's not a hint,
that's a fat cluebat).
My time is too precious for language games. Outta here
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlYM5VIACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZ0sgCeLe9yEiF62yErQfDRoazIvrVA
pdUAnRRGFTrKQIYqbgiQVk4SPQEALMgI
=KjnW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: