Hi!
Stripped off security@debian.org off the list -- if it is an open
letter it shouldn't be hidden in a closed list.
* "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> [2003-12-12 14:16]:
> I doubt that RMS is considering intentions, but is looking at facts.
>
> In current use, the term `open source' conflates at least two
> different actions. One action is the release of code under the GNU
> General Public License. Another action, which I myself have seen
> referred to as `open source', is the permission Microsoft gave to
> officials from the government of mainland China to study, but not
> copy, change, or redistribute, its Microsoft Windows source code.
When speaking about "facts" you know that Microsoft calls their
initiative "shared source", not "open source", do you?
And when you regard that as open source you can also regard freeware as
free software, right? That is playing at the same level, just to keep
the "facts" correct.
> You may think the intent of the phrase `open source' is only to refer
> to software that you and others may run, copy, study, change, and
> redistribute. Unfortunately, other people do not always intend that.
And some other people do not always intend free as in freedom but as in
free beer. Your point was?
Still, the original thread was never about this wording clinches that
seem to be there since the beginning of time. Some people on the other
hand always seem to want to play that sort of game, unfortunately....
> A similar problem occurs when people (using the English language)
> understand `free software' to be `free' in the sense of gratis, rather
> than free in the sense of `free speech', `free markets', or `the free
> world'. However, enough people are sensitive to this problem that you
> often seen people referring to `free as in free speech, not free
> beer'. The goal is to avoid confusion.
The confusion is already there when there is the need to refer to free
as in speech. And as long as you need to refer to something it doesn't
matter if you refer from open source (where people IMHO are more often
puzzled when it is a "take a look but don't touch" thing) or if you
refer from free software (where the question about "which free" pops up
more often, IMHO again).
No, don't get me wrong: I don't really prefer the one or the other
term, I usually refer to Free Software myself too, but I think some
people are too sensitive on that topic.
And for what its worth, the free problem exist in german, too. Just as
a side node.
>> Rather, my reading of the message was that it proposed
>> that different projects work together to offer greater protection
>> against security threats.
>
> That is your reading.
And the one of most of the people involved in Free Software projects,
IMNSHO.
Just my 2¢.
Alfie
P.S.: The Cc:-List is getting larger and larger -- no need to add me to
it, I respond to a mail that I've received through one of the lists
and obviously will also read answers there, thanks. This would all be
much better if Mail-Followup-To would become a real standard :-/
--
There are many times when you want it to ignore the rest of the string just
like atof() does. Oddly enough, Perl calls atof(). How convenient. :-)
-- Larry Wall in <1991Jun24.231628.14446@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>
Attachment:
pgplJeMZ61lkC.pgp
Description: PGP signature