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

[Tim]

(Hey Don, sorry, I didn't have any time to reply this weekend...)

Don Gould wrote:
> Tim wrote:
> > 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.

[...snipped good reasons...]

That's okay - it was just my personal opinion and I'm not fussed :^)
 
> 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?

To me (still foggy and half asleep in the morning ;^) it's the
difference between control (er, freedom) for the end user of the
software running on their computers and lack of control. But I realise
that most other people (incl.  Nigel) aren't going to understand that
very easily.

> 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.

Yes, that makes sense.
 
> 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 agree. Your letter is fine as is... I just wanted to suggest a couple
of (optional) things from another point of view.

> 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.

I agree.

[...]

> >> 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?

He might get the idea that RMS thinks people should write and give away
software for free. That's my interpretation of the sentence in question.
But that interpretation would be way too simple, because of course Free
Software can be (and very often is) developed and supported for profit -
and RMS and the GPL strongly encourage that.


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

(I hope my explanation above clarifies what I wanted to say.)

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

No, I think we just have slightly different points of view - but it
doesn't actually matter so we shouldn't worry about it :^)

[...]
> 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.

I think commercial sponsorship would be absolutely fine, but that's
just me and I'm not trying to debate it.

If the letter is sent as-is, I still think it's a great letter :^)

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

Best regards,

Tim
--
Timothy Musson                         FSF Associate Member
http://www.russianclub.wikidot.com/    http://www.fsf.org/