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

[Timothy Musson]

Rik Tindall wrote:
> Hi, thanks Tim, sorry for the late reply..

That's okay - I've been pretty busy too :^)

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

Yes, I think people (not just us) spend too much time on the naming
debate. (And I haven't helped by joining in ;^)

I'll try to make this my last post in this thread, too.

> 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

I should probably have made it clear right at the start that I wasn't
trying to tell you (or anyone else) what terms to use, but explaining
why I use the terms I use.

If you want FOSS to be the "official" term used for GNUz and GLU events,
posters, etc., I don't have a problem with that at all.

Personally, I'll continue to stick an L in FOSS whenever I feel like it.
Which won't happen often, because I've decided to avoid both terms and
stick to "Free Software" :^)


> - 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.

*mumbles something about protest and civil disobedience* :^)


> 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.

Yes, I agree.


> 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..;

 
> 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.

I don't think about Free software as a brand. I use a capital F to hint
that I'm not talking about the ordinary adjective "free" (...so, I
sometimes apply Free with a capital F to things other than software).

I don't expect anyone to agree, it's just a habit :^)


> >>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 :)

Well yes, that's true :^)


> 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.

What's the first thing people think of when they hear "Free!"?
What's the first thing people think of when they hear "Liberty!"?

I know which one I'd count on to give the correct impression.

> 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.

Of course I have the legal right to refer to Free software as FLOSS if I
wish to. Just as people have every right to refer to GNU/Linux as Linux
if they wish to.


> >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.

> 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_.

(I think you know that there are several truly Free software licenses
besides the GPL.)


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

Me too :^)

Best regards,

Tim
-- 
trmusson@ihug.co.nz
http://www.russsoc.org.nz/