[GNUz] How does GLU/GNUz differ from CLUG?

[Timothy Musson]

Rik Tindall wrote:
> Now the population curve would place most comp.users in front of a
> virtual desktop made by a) WinXX, or b) *nix, but in both cases a
> productised environment - as cognicised (tho Dictionary doesn't like).
> Over time, brand "Linux" is more and more conforming to that market
> trend, successfully. Which undermines the point made above and
> explains why occasional newcomers, attracted from whatever liberal
> non-programmer background by GNU/*, face such a shock of cold water
> when reaching a "LUG".

Of course, there's absolutely nothing wrong with "productising" and
selling Free Software. People often describe Free Software as
non-commercial, but look: the NZ stock exchange uses it, Air New Zealand
uses it, Google uses it, Amazon uses it, IBM uses it, Sun uses it, NASA
uses it, ISPs use it, companies pay to have it developed, companies sell
support, etc., etc., etc.

Microsoft intentionally refers to Free Software as "non-commercial
software" precisely because they know it's a real commercial threat! :^)


> >BTW, I certainly am focused on the freedom, the libre aspect of
> >FLOSS. We just haven't got around yet to changing the name of Linux
> >Australia to something else (although many people agree this would be
> >a good idea to show it is about more that a kernel) and we have
> >already started this discussion and process. I highly doubt we would
> >establish ourselves as FSF Australia however, FLOSS Australia, FOSS
> >Australia, or something else entirely is all on the cards.

Hey, that's great!
(I like FLOSS Australia: it's fun to say and easy for new people to
remember, so it should be pretty good for promoting yourselves :^)


> I happily offer 2 cents worth towards your final position. :)
 
> There are just a few, but specific determinants as to which 
> "FOSS"/"FLOSS" term we should most frequently. These are, imho, the most 
> important:
> 
> a) "FOSS" is an abbreviation of "FLOSS", and both are legitimate usages 
> for much the same thing - see * above.
> 
> b) Most websites, organisations, and F/LOSS projects in our field use 
> the catchier, tighter, and shorter acronym "FOSS", for whatever 
> additional reason/s.
> 
> c) The choice we face is political, where a minority wishes to muddy the 
> consumer waters by pushing the longer acronym as much as possible;  why?
> 
> d) The answer to c) is for extending assertion of business values over 
> community values, imho, by delimiting "Free" to its libre sense.
>
> e) Essentially d) is to remove the freedom of cost-freedom.
> 
> 0) The freedom to promote "FOSS" - along with the majority that have 
> already so decided to do - is absolutely implicit in FLOSS libre, and 
> many will fight "FLOSS" marketing, in favour of "FOSS", to the hilt. - 
> *For the sake of simpler marketing!* and more.

I don't really understand this, Rik. The "libre" sense is the only
meaning of Free that the FSF is interested in. Price just isn't an
issue. See the "Free Software Definition":

  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

(Though, sure, that kind of freedom results in existing Free Software
generally being available at little or no cost. But that's just a nice
side effect.)

The FSF often grumbles about the fact that we have to make do with the
ambiguous word "Free" in English, because the language doesn't have a
more apt word, like "libre".

In most languages, the term for "Free Software" works out to something
like "software libre" or "freedom software". So in countries where folks
don't speak English, they have a good idea what Free Software is about
just by the name. It's about freedom, not price.  But in English we're
stuck with "Free Software", which leads to confusion.

("Open Source" conveys the idea that you might be able to look at the
source, but that's all. And unlike "Free Software", the term "Open
Source" doesn't improve when translated into other languages.)

So, I don't see any problem at all with either "FLOSS" or "FOSS".


Tim
-- 
trmusson@ihug.co.nz