MESSAGE
| DATE | 2001-12-08 |
| FROM | Jon Britton
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Stallman re: Information Producers Initiative
|
Not sure if it's entirely relevant to the discussion's political nature,
but it might be worth pimping my crusade against "free software". No, I
have nothing against freedom or RMS, its the term "free software" when
it describes binary-only shareware/freeware available to Linux, I object.
It seems any time something is given away "free"(beer), and available
for free(liberty) unix-clones, it is mistakenly labeled free software.
Obviously, this is not the case, and further yet fuels the fire of the
average user who still thinks "there's no money to be made in free".
Instead, "no cost" works just fine. A search for "free" on dictionary.com
yields 17 definitions, with only one being remotely close to the monetary
cost of an item...so it isn't exactly an ideal term to begin with. Many of
us understand the use of computers as an educational tool is way more
important than making a profit selling software, but if one chooses to sell
something they've written, they can still give us free software and pay the
rent at the same time.
I've seen the "free but not Free" comments all over the place, and maybe its
just time to leave free software to what it is. Or, maybe, it would be
better to come up with a new term for the FSF. Maybe the Software Liberation Front.
Or the People's Liberated Software Movement...or just Liberating Software.
Or even "Hey we promise not to screw you on this" Software. I'll accept any.
- Jon
--
My site used to be non-W3C-compliant. Today, its W3C-defiant!
____________________________
New Yorker Linux Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
