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

[Rik Tindall]

Timothy Musson wrote:
>
>   
>>> 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.
>>>       
>
> >From a transcript of an RMS interview:
>
>   "There are many people, who, for instance, want to study our
>   community, or write about our community, and want to avoid taking sides
>   between the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement. Often
>   they have heard primarily of the Open Source movement, and they think
>   that we all support it. So, I point out to them that, in fact, our
>   community was created by the Free Software movement. but then they often
>   say that they are not addressing that particular disagreement, and that
>   they would like to mention both movements without taking a side.
>   So I recommend the term Free/Libre Open Source Software as a way they
>   can mention both movements and give equal weight to both. And they
>   abbreviate FLOSS once they have said what it stands for. So I think
>   that's a ... If you don't want to take a side between the two movements,
>   then yes, by all means, use that term. Cause what I hope you will do is
>   take the side of the free software movement. But not everybody has
>   to. The term is legitimate."
>
>   http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/rms-interview-edinburgh-040527.txt
>
>
> An example of RMS using the term FLOSS himself:
>
>   "What is Sun's new contribution to the FLOSS community?"
>
>   http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sun-in-night-time.html
>
>
> (Again, I'm not saying you ought to use the term FLOSS if you don't like
> it. Just repeating - with backup from the horse's mouth this time - that
> FLOSS is a perfectly acceptable term.)
>
> Tim
>   

The project-lead rejection of "FLOSS" is not any argument with RMS, but 
with how others have tended to spin this term he uses. Specifically, to 
seek project-derived sponsorship for private print business that would 
advocate "FLOSS" despite the simple and single request that it not 
(under contract). - i.e. as a private and unrealistic commercial attack 
upon "FOSS" branding.

Without immediately chasing up the quotes Tim provides, what I'd already 
noticed is that RMS sometimes used "FLOSS" before, but now accepts both 
"FLOSS" and "FOSS" terms - the latter being in much greater 
international currency now - so every Free Software project, and every 
individual, has their own choice of what term is best to use.

Yet after all, even RMS is capable of being wrong at times ;)

I actually think in most cases the subliminal attachment to / insertion 
of / f^Loss is to emphasise L-inux, but that observation merits little 
debate :)

Cheers

-- 
Rik