MESSAGE
| DATE | 2005-06-24 |
| FROM | Contrarian
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] "Free Software" definitions
|
The FSF has several articles delineating what "Free Software" is.
Here's a quote from one about one of the issues that
some have mentioned, namely that it isn't immediately
clear what "Free" means (the specifics, freedom to use,
copy, distribute, understand, modify, are discussed
elsewhere)
Ambiguity:
The term "free software" has an ambiguity problem: an unintended
meaning, "Software you can get for zero price," fits the term just as
well as the intended meaning, "software which gives the user certain
freedoms." We address this problem by publishing a more precise
definition of free software, but this is not a perfect solution; it
cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguously correct term
would be better, if it didn't have other problems.
Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their
own. We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, but
none is so clearly "right" that switching to it would be a good idea.
Every proposed replacement for "free software" has a similar kind of
semantic problem, or worse--and this includes "open source software."
Any other discussion on this, or the contrast between
"Free Software" and "Open Source" might be helpful.
"Freedom" as discussed at the FSF site,etc. is exactly
what the founder(s) of the FSF desired.
Note that "Free Software" does not preclude charging for
services rendered in _using_ it, nor for charging for copies,
etc (as the FSF does, or GNU)
The Open Source Foundation also has discussions. I don't
have a great succint definition of the differences yet.
Any comment appreciated.
|
|
