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

[Rik Tindall]

Hi, thanks Tim, sorry for the late reply..

1) Congratulations Pia! The new SFD front end is lean & green, with 
significant clarity / leanings towards Free Software. Well done on how 
you are leading resolution of this enormous project's essence.

Noted too is that a major SFD partner, UNDP-APDIP International Open 
Source Network, has become very specific about its "Free/Open Source 
Software (FOSS)". All good :)

Wanting to draw a line under this (FOSS/FLOSS debate/divergence), to get 
onto something more useful, I promised these closing points..

The beginning and the end of the matter - as far as I can tell - is:

If you've getting your English meaning from a non-English speaker, then 
you went there for something else.

Unity (around the majority-use FOSS?) is what free/open*nix really 
needs, to grow, we know. Which is why it seems necessary to put to one 
side (for CLUG et al to pursue, or to drop as well?) this pointless 
argument. A decision is required to proceed - as on any project - and 
once it is made, then we just have to accept "that's how it is" (here); 
like, once a democracy has elected a 'left' or 'right' government, then 
everyone just gets on with working under _that's_the_way_it_is_, or they 
choose to emigrate. i.e. We don't want to waste any more energy over 
selecting a banner, because it's the work that's done beneath it that is 
what's actually important.

These are the projects I'm most wanting to work with people on, as means 
of FOSS advocacy:

GNU/Linux Users
Freenix Workshops
Ubuntu / Free Software class
SFD Team Christchurch..;

all wrapped up behind a 'constitutional' charter now - FSANZ
http://www.infohelp.co.nz/fsanz-constitution.html

It was only because Don sought to challenge my freedom to develop 
projects in this way (from his Win/OSS preference) that there has been 
any dispute of this FOSS specificity. Hence the ardent countering..

So for the record..

Timothy Musson wrote:
> 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.

The problem is the sloppy thinking exemplified in the (linguistic etc) 
abuse of the Free Software _brand_.

Whereas "free software" - as many users like Phil and sites like 
Ubuntu's are prone to enlumpen - includes Free Software (usually), and 
closed-source Win-warez, etc - this is a different thing to "Free 
Software", the _brand_ of open-source-ware. Subtle, I know, but we need 
to grok the difference; and promote it.

 From what I've read 'FLOSS' was picked up as an intentional extension 
of the OSS (brand) attack on Free Software's brand (to demarcate "Free" 
as _limited_ to "Libre" in meaning, in the way that Don sought to push 
the issue too), to advance Europe's leverage in the US-dominated field. 
So it's a choice of whether or not you want to join that attack on the 
specific Free Software brand, or take the time to explain that Free 
Software _includes_ the libre meaning, in every way, already, without 
the need to modify the Free Software brand.

I see this defence as very important, for FS(F) integrity, and for 
retaining all cost options derived from Free.

>> Personally, I prefer "Free software" (because I know exactly what sense
>> of the word "free" I'm talking about).

Me too. Unreservedly. But with the two capitals.

>> 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.

That objective is arguably impossible :)

Whereas you're more likely to win them over to the _correct_ use of 
language (manifest as brands).

> 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.

Liberty implies all the senses you cite: gratis, & not; also freedom - 
to use a Free brand in this variegated way.

The 'FLOSS' campaign is an injunction to delimit "Free" usage, and you, 
nor anyone, have no legal right to intercede in Free Software branding 
in this way, as I see it.

Simply, adding the Free Software and Open Source _brands_ together gives 
us just "FOSS", legitimately. Adding "Libre" into the equation is a 
confusion of references, adding a linguistic externality. For whatever 
reason it is done, by compromising the particular brands, I just feel 
that it's wrong and do not wish to endorse it.

> 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

That is precisely the point. We _never_ take "Free" (the brand) to mean 
'just gratis'. Is it licensed GPL? - If not _it's_not_Free_. If it is, 
you are free to charge for it. It is 'Not/Open Source' for Windows that 
is more likely to be "free" (gratis) - a la Netscape.

The simpler promotion of Free Software is what's achieved by "FOSS", the 
web-published record seems to show.

Happily exiting this question,

Cheers
-- 
Rik