[GNUz] [Fwd: Re: RMS to visit NZ] - The Great Hall Sponsorship Application

[Don Gould]

Tim wrote:
> Don Gould wrote:
>> Please don't flame me, if you have issue then let's hear why.
> 
> It's a great letter :^)

Thanks Tim.

> 
> Just a couple of tiny things I'd (personally) change...
> 
>> -----------------
>> Richard Stallman is to free software what Bill Gates is to commercial 
>> software.
> 
> I'd change that 'commercial' to 'proprietary'. One of Microsoft's
> favourite habits is to describe Free and Open Source Software as
> "non-commercial", as a way of making it sound unsuitable for commercial
> use.

I strongly disagree with you.

aa.  The audience of this letter is Nigel.  I don't know, but I doubt, 
he knows sweet FA about what Microsoft attempt to do to discredit 
software that is not their own.

bb.  I used the term 'commercial' because it infers the involvement of 
money.

Most people understand the difference between commercial and 
non-commercial as meaning money and no money.

What does 'proprietary' mean to people?

In my draft, I'm trying to convince the reader, Nigel, that we have no 
money and neither does RMS.  This is why we want CA to give us the venue 
for free.

I am trying to keep the issue as simple as possible and didn't want our 
message to be lost because we chose to use 'purist terms'.

I am very concerned that our message could become lost in what is a very 
complex social issue.

I am frightened that we will not effectively communicate the importance 
of RMS and GNU to people like Nigel.

>> Google is run on free software and simply wouldn't exist if the people 
>> who built it had been force to use commercial licensed software.
> 
> (Same again - s/commercial/proprietary/)

Again, as above, I don't believe that people would get the message.

>> "Source code is to software what a recipe is to a cake."

>> It struck us as a bit ironic to suggest charging a fee to come and hear 
>> a man talk about why you should give your software away for free.
> 
> I think the letter would be even better without that sentence. (I mean,
> RMS encourages the use of Free Software commercially as well as in
> general. I know that _you_ understand that, but I think that sentence
> might lead Nigel to the wrong idea, maybe.)

I'm sorry but I don't understand what 'wrong idea' you think Nigel might 
get.  Can you please explain what you're thinking?

I'm also not sure you understand what I'm trying to communicate with 
that statement so I will trying and reword my point.

Please tell me if you think I've failed in my attempt to say what I'm 
thinking.

...  If I was doing Nigel's job I'd be thinking that if the event is as 
important as what 'Rik' suggests then it should have 'real money value'. 
  Rik's mates should be able to sell tickets to the event to more than 
cover the cost of the hall, after all they're not even going to need $2 
per person if they fill the hall.  They should be able to raise other 
commercial sponsorship from computer firms (wouldn't Telecom or Telstra 
like to have their name on the door?! - What about Xerox?).

I want to explain to Nigel why we're only asking for donations and not 
stating a price.  I wanted him to understand why a commercial 
sponsorship is not really appropriate.


Tim I would like to hear what others think as well.

Cheers Don