[GNUz] What did the FSF ever do for us?

[Nick Rout]

Rik Tindall wrote:
> Nick Rout wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 4, 2007 1:29 pm, Sue McGaw wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> yes i was dissapointed in reply from SFd organiser who lumped FLOSS and
>>> Foss together as one.,
>>>   
>>
>> Please explain the difference between floss and foss? (I don't believe
>> there is one, so please explain.
>>  
>>
> What some 'net research shows is that the term "Libre" is pushed from 
> Europe, to progress economic leverage viz a viz the US (following the 
> LinOSS input), by replacing "Free" in software usage.

No I believe it is introduced to emphasise that the software is both 
free as in gratis and free as in freedom. ie the F represents gratis and 
the L represents freedom. What is so hard to understand about that.

>
> a) "Libre" is redundant if you've just said "Free", so why the 
> initiative to state it? - Because it conditions "Free", in the very 
> same way that is already achieved by the "OSS" in FOSS, prior to 
> replacing it entirely. i.e. A number of European+ programmers are 
> pushing to remove the "gratis" option within Freedom 2, through 
> "Libre" usage, though more want to keep it.
What does "European+" mean?

No one ever said you cannot charge for GPL software, although the 
obligation to provide the source at no more than a reasonable charge 
makes it a little impractical to charge anything more than a token fee 
for the binaries simpliciter. Linking the binaries with support (as 
Redhat do) is a legitimate use of the GPL as well.

However to most people (ie for those that don't want paid support) open 
source software is effectively gratis or very cheap.

So who are these "European+ programmers", and what is the source for 
your contention?

>
> b) Linux Australia has aligned with initiative 'a', documentation 
> shows. Pia is seeking increased SFD funding by this same (EU/UN 
> aligned) business route. The price of the deal would seem to be 
> admitting "Libre" into the SFD discourse - a good thing? - possible? 
> ... [Apologies if I've misread this; more info is welcome, though 
> bureaucratic politics are skilled in not providing much.]
>

I think you are seeing problems where they don't exist. Once you realise 
that the term "FOSS" is equivalent to the term "FLOSS", the paranoia 
about LA using the term "FLOSS" disappears.

> c) Spreading influences 'b' to A-NZ, at the cost of "Free"/GNU, is not 
> entirely welcome. - Hence some bitter response to the fLOSS.
>

Your argument starts from a false proposition (that the term "FLOSS" 
represents some evil proposition) and proceeds through several levels of 
assumption and paranoia to the point where once again you alienate a 
fellow proponent of free and open software.

> Diplomacy is welcome.
>

Try indulging in some then! Stop alieating everyone you come in contact 
with!