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

[Rik Tindall]

Nick, always both a pleasure and a challange engaging with an intellect 
of the standard of yours.

You've emerged as quite the Stallmanite, joining the chorus of well 
learned Freedoms, which is good to see (more loudly repeated).

Thanks to Tim's and your good selves, more thought has gone into this 
matter, with quite new result.

Nick Rout wrote re:
>>>
>> FOSS" is an *extension* of "FLOSS"
> 
> No, FLOSS and FOSS are different terms for the same thing. Both names
> incorporate "Free" (in the Stallman sense) and "Open Source" software
> without taking sides between the two camps.

Wrongly spun, given the way that they are used - including this attempt 
to (pro-"Unix") neutralise a highly charged contest - although argued 
from a sound base:

"Stallman endorses the terms FLOSS and FOSS to refer to 'open source' 
and 'free software' without necessarily choosing between the two camps, 
but he asks people to consider supporting the 'free software' camp."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSS

Now RMS is not God (although very close ;), which means there's room for 
more to his mortal story than just appearance. Either that or he's just 
not telling directly. But his statement promotes F/losS very clearly - 
the FS is the important part, as for those who agree. It's left to us to 
show how we agree.

The three writers to this sub-topic like to follow the full, standard 
Free/Libre signifier, which is just fine. It has no effect; until it's 
applied in some public context, and then it matters - as strengthening 
their choice of FOSS/FLOSS camp. Only clashes of usage are a problem, 
between Wikipedia's "camps". Keeping far apart would fix that.

> The word "Libre" is used to
> distinguish between Free as in "gratis" and Free as in "Freedom", however
> it is unnecessary if you understand that the "Free" in FOSS/FLOSS has a
> double meaning.

True, and complete. Except for defeating your contradiction this way:

> I prefer the one with "Libre" as it makes me seem kind of European and
> cool, but thats beside the point. They are equivalent.

Not to normal (non-geek) people - our critically absent market. They'd 
slap you round the ear with a flounder, and tell you "je nes comprende 
Francaise" - in English - and "bog off." Ordinary people know what 
"free" means, and they are right: there's many, many more of them.

Reading between RMS's lines, he knows this too. Only too well. Except 
that he started out negotiating between programmers and investor suits 
and has couched his license language, pragmatically, in their terms ever 
since.

FOSS is an *extension* of "FLOSS", as well as a simple abbreviation, in 
that by this term we express our freedom to bring out Freedom 2 - free 
redistribution/sharing - removing any doubt over it. When RMS says "it's 
not about price", please listen to him - cost-free is as valid a price 
option as any other. You have no grounds whatsoever to obstruct us from 
meaning cost-free when we say Free. Or from revealing that extra 
(denied) meaning within "FOSS" - as a bigger and deeper range than the 
hidebound (and daftly aggressive) "FLOSS". That's what RMS's range of 
comments say to me. He asks for F/(and its your)losS.

Further, as you say, Free means Open-Source(+). So adding "Libre" is 
linguistically and completely redundant in "FLOSS" - done purely to 
_prevent_ the real (anti-commodity code) sense of cost-Free, that I've 
just identified, from coming out. Like two bites of the cherry: you 
don't need to say "libre" if your next phrase is "Open-Source". It's 
pure repetition. So you get get these right-wing nerds wanting to pick 
arguments, and waste good F(l)OSS-promotional time, by asserting the 
permanent qualification of Libre over Free. But they are wrong, and 
quite backward (limited in the picture they have of Free, which they 
actually and greatly fear - as devaluation of their programmer skills).

The ultimate proof of this overt and cobbling agenda is that it comes 
out of the "OSI" in the first place - the hell of "Open Source" (now 
that's a deficient phrase) branding: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishab_Aiyer_Ghosh

Well, I can't help but observe now, the more I experience the sub-moral 
&/or self-interested half-truthfulness of (some?) "Linux" exponents, and 
the half-way house of their OSS-lust (compatible with WindowsTM), the 
more I realise the job ahead, for GNU, on behalf of FSF, is to start 
cutting these 'superior beings' off at their ego-compromised knees.

"Pass me the light sabre."

This is not going to get any prettier.

-- 
Rik