* Marco Peereboom <slash@peereboom.us> [2007-12-15 08:24:21]:

quoted text
> > Are you afraid that people are just going to go after features
> > 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