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

[Rik Tindall]

Nick Rout wrote:

>> 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.


Not true. F represents both the gratis _option _and_ freedom. Please do 
not impose gratis on Free, when it is neither bound nor limited to 
gratis, in this way. The L is redundant, except in the negative sense of 
_limiting_ Free to the (non-gratis) meaning "Libre" linguistically imposes.

>> 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?


European (programmers) + programmers outside Europe!

Please, when can our GNU work be Free of Nick's time-wasting (sabotage)?

Forgive me if I cease answering him.

> No one ever said you cannot charge for GPL software, 


Waddya know, an obfuscating lawyer. Why is that no surprise?

Yes FSF did. It is GPL software-derived _services_ that are charged for, 
under the Free Software model (eg RedHat's).

That may be through the provision of storage media, but Canonical have 
added weight to the argument that even this compromise was a bad idea.

> 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.


..Twisting the story..

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


Well "open source" UNIX didn't end up that way. You know you're off 
course here, so _please_give_up_.

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


OSS - the first wave of attack on Free. These one can live with, OSS 
having contributed well. It's the second wave - overtly and by admission 
seeking replacement of Free with (non-English, and in this case 
nonsensical) "Libre" - that we must resist in every way it is proposed. 
Let us dedicate this list to that cause.

Oh, and these _non-programmer_ 'LUG leader' bureaucrats have no useful 
role yet?.. which is why they choose forcing through greater reaction 
against Free. Bye.

>> 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.


You don't read. You don't understand the current direction of European 
politics. You're not prepared to join us in GNU's battles to survive. 
..Just why are you here?..

Unhelpful.

Why not accept that the _majority_ of  users, including those from the 
_impoverished_ societies, use "FOSS" - and stop undermining movement 
unity around that? _Or_ please take your fLOSS division back to 
Euro-privilege "Linux" land (a 'LUG' list) where it properly belongs. 
Honestly, we have nothing in common Nick. Please absent yourself from 
(our unconditioned conditional) "Free" - in person, since you're wanting 
to achieve that via "Libre" in word. Leave Free alone!

"University educated, spoilt white brats" - can't leave "Free" alone - 
is what needs to be said, if 'polite' elite crooked 'morality' wasn't 
obstructing that. $.02

Btw. Have you been to a linuxconf.au Nick? - Forgive me for reaching an 
independent conclusion, through experience.

>> 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.


lower case - LOSSer.

- YAAttack on Free. Get with the program, Nick! :)

"Paranoia" - more (empty & foolish) personal abuse.. one short and final 
reply to follow. The debate will be closed.

>> Diplomacy is welcome.
>
> Try indulging in some then! Stop alieating everyone you come in 
> contact with!


Remove the "Libre" gun at the head of "Free", and everything is possible :)

thanks, rik