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

[Timothy Musson]

Timothy Musson wrote:
> 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

> > a) "Libre" is redundant if you've just said "Free", so why the 
> > initiative to state it?

> The words "libre" and "free" have different meanings. Libre is more
> specific than the English word "free", and the "libre" sense of "free"
> is what Free software is all about.
> 
> So I don't understand why you're okay with FOSS but not FLOSS.
> 
> If anything, I have a problem with FOSS, since it's less specific about
> the FSF's goals.
> 
> Personally, I prefer "Free software" (because I know exactly what sense
> of the word "free" I'm talking about). If I'm talking/writing to people
> who might not feel the same way, I think "FLOSS" is probably the best
> choice to keep everyone happy.

To put it another way, "FOSS" could mean "gratis Open Source software".
And I have less than zero interest in "gratis Open Source software". It
says nothing to about liberty.

You know, even Microsoft provides some of it's non-libre software under
an "Open Source" license that could be described as "FOSS", if you take
"free" to mean gratis.

Tim
-- 
trmusson@ihug.co.nz
www.russsoc.org.nz