* Marco Peereboom  [2007-12-15 08:24:21]:
> > Are you afraid that people are just going to go after features

quoted text
> > rather than free software once they've been tempted?  so you must

> > keep them ignorant.  Plus, how does using GPL software educate

> > people about the GPL philosophy?  Nobody can deny that a VAST

> > majority of the "F(/)OSS" community does not understand the difference

> > between free and open source software, let alone what GPL-free-as-in-speech

> > (for lack of a better term) is all about.  All they know is

> > free-as-in-beer.  Hell, even most of the big linux players don't

> > "get it."

>

> I really wish people would stop using these free analogies.  They are

> misleading and stupid.

>

> GPL licensed software = Gratis software (before you point out that some

> dictionaries use the word "free" as a synonym... remember in school when

> you had to pick the "best option"; that's what this is, the best word to

> describe something).

>

> ISC licensed software = Free software and let me quote some dictionary

> entries so that we all know what we are talking about:

> - exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a

>   person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent;

>   unrestricted.

> - able to do something at will; at liberty: free to choose.

> - exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains,

>   burdens, etc. (usually fol. by from or of): free from worry; free of

>   taxes.

> - given without consideration of a return or reward: a free offer of

>   legal advice.

> - not subject to special regulations, restrictions, duties, etc.: The

>   ship was given free passage.

> - that may be used by or is open to all: a free market.

>

>

> There is no such thing as free beer.  Someone, somewhere paid for

> production, distribution, etc etc.  This is a stupid concept.

>

> Free as in speech as it is used has similar issues.

> The GPL license is full of legal restrictions and can therefore NOT be

> considered free speech.  I can talk all day long on how free my license

> is (free speech) but it doesn't mean it is true.  Where it falls apart

> is that the GPL enforces legal restrictions that limit free speech.  So

> lets call it what it is; GPL software is gratis.

>

> RMS definitions of free/liberty/freedom etc are contorted to fit his

> believe system.  They are not legal definitions and worse not even

> correct English.  Got to love that the non-native speaker has to point

> that out.

>

> Do yourself a favor and stop listening to his stupid rhetoric.

> 

I realize that you are frustrated with the terms and their definitions.

However, if someone is well-versed in the GPL philosophy and rhetoric,

it is understood what is meant when I say free and when I say open.

I don't see any other good way to discuss it.  Certainly in the BSD

camp we don't think that the GPL is "free." Yes, it is a legal

monstrosity and it limits your rights.  I just can't have a coherent

conversation with someone all the while inserting that disclaimer

every damn time I use a word.  However, I have to agree, Stallman's

arguments are rhetorical, they do contain equivocations on words

like free.
Marco, if you can develop a new system of lexicons, I'd be glad to

use it.
What are you talking about?  There is free beer!  =) It's a beer

that you did not pay for, so for all intents and purposes to you,

it is free.  I'll buy you one sometime.  Hehe.
--

Travers Buda