Hi everybody,
just read through
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
where the differences between OS and FS are explained by rms himself.
I still stick to what I said in the mail before: I don't see the difference. I.e., <flame shield> I see what he says, I just don't think that these are the important points. The basics are the same, and that's better software development through peer review. </flame shild>
But perhaps I'm just too much into the practical aspects of the discussion.
Alexander Braun Laser Laboratorium Göttingen Hans-Adolf-Krebs-Weg 1 37077 Göttingen
fon +49 (0) 551 5035 23 fax +49 (0) 551 5035 99
email abraun3@gwdg.de
Hello Alexander
I still stick to what I said in the mail before: I don't see the difference.
Ok.
[...] The basics are the same, and that's better software development through peer review.
No (but yes, I've seen your flame shield). And yes, you are too much into the practical aspect. As you ask in another mail, I'll explain again.
The free software movement, the GNU project or the FSF do not aim at "better software through peer review". They (we) aim at people's freedom, and better software is just a side effect [1].
On the other hand, the open source movement (no capitals for lazy typing) aims at better software for everyone through peer review; people's freedom is a side effect.
It's that easy. Not a big practical difference, only a big theoretical difference.
When Suse (to name one) writes a non-free installer and includes non-free add-ons in their distribution, it is part of the open-source movement (and, actually, they give you the source of the installer, so you can fix bugs for them if you want).
When Debian make a all-free-software distribution relegating non-free packages to a separate distribution tree, they are supporting free software.
When Doc Searls writes his editorials for Linux Journal, he's definitely supporting the open-source movement. And I'd better not comment on those editorials. Actually, I'd better not comment on Linux Journal as a whole, I definitely won't write for them any more.
[1] this side effect is not always achieved. Some companies are now open-sourcing their packages in a vane desire to make them better; releasing under a free license is not a magic trick to make any package any better.
Hello Alexander
I still stick to what I said in the mail before: I don't see the difference.
Ok.
[...] The basics are the same, and that's better software development through peer review.
No (but yes, I've seen your flame shield). And yes, you are too much into the practical aspect. As you ask in another mail, I'll explain again.
The free software movement, the GNU project or the FSF do not aim at "better software through peer review". They (we) aim at people's freedom, and better software is just a side effect [1].
On the other hand, the open source movement (no capitals for lazy typing) aims at better software for everyone through peer review; people's freedom is a side effect.
It's that easy. Not a big practical difference, only a big theoretical difference.
When Suse (to name one) writes a non-free installer and includes non-free add-ons in their distribution, it is part of the open-source movement (and, actually, they give you the source of the installer, so you can fix bugs for them if you want).
When Debian make a all-free-software distribution relegating non-free packages to a separate distribution tree, they are supporting free software.
When Doc Searls writes his editorials for Linux Journal, he's definitely supporting the open-source movement. And I'd better not comment on those editorials. Actually, I'd better not comment on Linux Journal as a whole, I definitely won't write for them any more.
[1] this side effect is not always achieved. Some companies are now open-sourcing their packages in a vane desire to make them better; releasing under a free license is not a magic trick to make any package any better.
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
The free software movement, the GNU project or the FSF do not aim at "better software through peer review". They (we) aim at people's freedom, and better software is just a side effect [1].
On the other hand, the open source movement (no capitals for lazy typing) aims at better software for everyone through peer review; people's freedom is a side effect.
It's that easy. Not a big practical difference, only a big theoretical difference.
Simple as that!!! Very interesting.
I never thought it that way. I can't find any valid objections to those statements apart from the fact that they sound too good to be true :-)
Objections, anyone?
But I've got my RMS poster photo right here :-), and I sometimes think we should stop talking about this and just start translating Stallman's works....
andrew
Alessandro Rubini a écrit :
Hello Alexander
I still stick to what I said in the mail before: I don't see the difference.
Ok.
[...] The basics are the same, and that's better software development through peer review.
No (but yes, I've seen your flame shield). And yes, you are too much into the practical aspect. As you ask in another mail, I'll explain again.
The free software movement, the GNU project or the FSF do not aim at "better software through peer review". They (we) aim at people's freedom, and better software is just a side effect [1].
On the other hand, the open source movement (no capitals for lazy typing) aims at better software for everyone through peer review; people's freedom is a side effect.
It's that easy. Not a big practical difference, only a big theoretical difference.
I have to comment on this excellent explanation and say that in my opinion an important point should be adressed by the FSF Europe, taking advantage of our multi-lingual nature (vs the american FSF) :
The Free software stands for Freedom... and freedom is easily translated in many european languages as a different word from the one for gratis.
For example in french, free is "libre" where as gratis is "gratuit".
This way, the french people involved in the FSFE effort should propagate the "logiciel libre" (or libre logiciel) term, which explains clearly that freedom what it's all about.
I would suggest others to do the same in their languages... unfortunately, UK (ang germans afaik) don't have such a word to use, ... but in this case, why not use "Libre software"... as we did for the Libre Software Meeting, last year in Bordeaux (with RMS approval on that term, btw ;) : http://lsm.abul.org/ ?
This way, we would get rid of the ritual problem of ambiguity in english that lead to the Open word as a replacement of Free...
Btw, for translations, see (and correct, maybe) http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fs-translations.html...
My 2 (euro)cents
Olivier Berger oberger@april.org wrote:
I have to comment on this excellent explanation and say that in my opinion an important point should be adressed by the FSF Europe, taking advantage of our multi-lingual nature (vs the american FSF) :
The Free software stands for Freedom... and freedom is easily translated in many european languages as a different word from the one for gratis.
For example in french, free is "libre" where as gratis is "gratuit".
This way, the french people involved in the FSFE effort should propagate the "logiciel libre" (or libre logiciel) term, which explains clearly that freedom what it's all about.
I would suggest others to do the same in their languages... unfortunately, UK (ang germans afaik) don't have such a word to use, ...
Well, in German, there's the difference between "frei" and "gratis" - you can, and you're right with that assumption, use "frei" to mean "gratis" (free as in beer), but usually (IMHO at least) it is rather obvious from the context if you mean "umsonst" (another word for "gratis") or "frei" (free as in speech). To avoid all confusion, in German one might want to use the noun - "Freiheit" is most certainly not related to cost in any way.
This way, we would get rid of the ritual problem of ambiguity in english that lead to the Open word as a replacement of Free...
Well, actually I like the "open". Again, in German I think "offen" communicates the idea of "free" in a better way - IMHO, of course.
Btw, for translations, see (and correct, maybe) http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fs-translations.html...
hmm, gotta check that - sorry if all I said before seems stupid after reading this ;))
-Jan
Hi,
On Samstag, 2. Dezember 2000 00:17, Olivier Berger wrote:
(kmail has still got some inconveniences ;-)
I would suggest others to do the same in their languages... unfortunately, UK (ang germans afaik) don't have such a word to use, ...
In german language "frei" means "libre", not anything like "gratis". A few days ago I've seen a documentation on tv (3sat) about the Comdex, where they confused these words - but they also told that FreeBSD is going to release their Linux distribution soon *g*
but in this case, why not use "Libre software"... as we did for the Libre Software Meeting, last year in Bordeaux (with RMS approval on that term, btw ;) : http://lsm.abul.org/ ?
Wouldn't this break some laws in France? I thought you had to use the term "logiciel" instead of "software" ?
Armin (currently chewing a "caoutchouc de mastication" ;-))
Armin Herbert a écrit :
but in this case, why not use "Libre software"... as we did for the Libre Software Meeting, last year in Bordeaux (with RMS approval on that term, btw ;) : http://lsm.abul.org/ ?
Wouldn't this break some laws in France? I thought you had to use the term "logiciel" instead of "software" ?
Yes indeed... or at least should we put a subtitle around... fyi, the french language (or at least a french transmlation) must be used on every commercials, official notes, marks (trade-), etc...
Hopefully, we can speak in english on the mailing-lists ;)
Armin (currently chewing a "caoutchouc de mastication" ;-))
lol
The free software movement, the GNU project or the FSF do not aim at "better software through peer review". They (we) aim at people's freedom, and better software is just a side effect [1].
On the other hand, the open source movement (no capitals for lazy typing) aims at better software for everyone through peer review; people's freedom is a side effect.
I would also like to add that the OS movement do not always guarantee the software will have such freedom in the future, so although the GPL is an OS licence, the inverse is not the case. I would regard Open-Source as as a 'jam today' attitude: it's like saying "we're okay" with no thought for what happens in the future. I would also very much encourage anyone to not use the term "open source", and I would be extremely discouraged if the FSFE decided to use such a term - if so, there's no point calling the organisation "Free Software Foundation". While I agree with this explanation of the differences, I would say also it runs much deeper, and is *definitely* a practical as well as theoretical difference.
I have to comment on this excellent explanation and say that in my opinion an important point should be adressed by the FSF Europe, taking advantage of our multi-lingual nature (vs the american FSF) :
This way, the french people involved in the FSFE effort should propagate the "logiciel libre" (or libre logiciel) term, which explains clearly that freedom what it's all about.
Is this actually the case? I do hope so, although my French is not sufficiently good to recognise it ;)) To me, "logiciel libre" could also have other implications - to an Englishmen's ears something like that has a more similar meaning to something such as "animaux libre" (help! the chickens have escaped!!), etc. ;)) It sounds like the software has escaped and is running around ;)) But as I said, that's probably my poor French!!
I would suggest others to do the same in their languages... unfortunately, UK (ang germans afaik) don't have such a word to use, ... but in this case, why not use "Libre software"... as we did for the Libre Software Meeting, last year in Bordeaux (with RMS approval on that term, btw ;) : http://lsm.abul.org/ ?
In terms of English, I think we have to make do with our bad lot. Although "Libre Software" is meaningful to people such as you or I, I think to the average anglophile it would take as much explaining as "Free Software", although possibly with benefit of not giving an erroneous first-impression. I think once people get used to the term, it will not be so bad - for example, when computers first started being really used in a widespread manner, people had trouble understanding what the computers were showing - apparantly, they all had "programmes". Of course, later, people came to understand they were running programs rather than showing programmes, and now "programs" is understood by most people as "things computers run". Language is extremely flexible, remember, and is defined not by dictionaries, or Universities, but by the people who speak it.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson a écrit :
This way, the french people involved in the FSFE effort should propagate the "logiciel libre" (or libre logiciel) term, which explains clearly that freedom what it's all about.
Is this actually the case? I do hope so, although my French is not sufficiently good to recognise it ;)) To me, "logiciel libre" could also have other implications - to an Englishmen's ears something like that has a more similar meaning to something such as "animaux libre" (help! the chickens have escaped!!), etc. ;)) It sounds like the software has escaped and is running around ;)) But as I said, that's probably my poor French!!
Interesting comment indeed... Well... actually, I don't think that one would really see the logiciel libre as a logiciel which has escaped (fear !)... but who knows what lambda user will imagine ;) with all these viruses around, better be carefull... What if crazy cows had contaminated software !! ... time to switch off :)
Best regards.
I would suggest others to do the same in their languages... unfortunately, UK (ang germans afaik) don't have such a word to use, ... but in this case, why not use "Libre software"... as we did for the Libre Software Meeting, last year in Bordeaux (with RMS approval on that term, btw ;) : http://lsm.abul.org/ ?
There is a basic problem with the term 'libre software' in the UK.
It's embarassing to admit ... but I don't really know how to pronounce the word 'libre' properly. And I wouldn't be entirely sure which language it comes from either. And if I didn't know about free software, I wouldn't know what it meant.
So, there are a few minor barriers to using that term here ;-)
Brian
Hi,
re: Brian Gough's comment on 'Libre Software'
I have to admit that you're quite right there. I think about trying to explain the ideas behind the FSF and it's quite enough as it is without having to do it in Franglais... the 'logiciel libre' phrase works quite well in French, but the only thing you'd accomplish by trying to use French words to explain a concept like that would be to make yourself sound highly pseudo-intellectual if you could pronounce it (uncool), or just confuse everybody if you couldn't (normal, but still uncool). It has that 'je ne sais quoi' about it... :p
...it sounds about as meaningless as that phrase, unless you speak fluent French.
/Good/ synonyms for the term "Free Software" in English are difficult to find. It seems to me that "Free" in this phrase really does encompass all required meanings; libre and gratis... maybe it's easiest to clarify it by additional slogans, just as RMS does. "Free as in speech, not as in beer", and so on. This thread is heading in semantic circles... :)
em
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Brian Gough wrote:
but in this case, why not use "Libre software"... as we did for the Libre Software Meeting, last year in Bordeaux (with RMS approval on that term, btw ;) : http://lsm.abul.org/ ?
There is a basic problem with the term 'libre software' in the UK.
It's embarassing to admit ... but I don't really know how to pronounce the word 'libre' properly. And I wouldn't be entirely sure which language it comes from either. And if I didn't know about free software, I wouldn't know what it meant.
// OLDSIG "All bad art is the result of good intentions." - Oscar Wilde
/* START NEWSIG */ Processor: (n.) a device for converting sense to nonsense at the speed of electricity, or (rarely) the reverse. - Tonkin's First Computer Dictionary
Olivier Berger wrote:
<snip>
I would suggest others to do the same in their languages... unfortunately, UK (ang germans afaik) don't have such a word to use, ...
Sorry to be picky, the _English language_ doesn't have such a word, but some UK languages, such as Welsh (and at a guess the other Celtic languages), do.
Cheers,
Gareth
Hello Alessandro,
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
Hello Alexander
I still stick to what I said in the mail before: I don't see the difference.
Ok.
[...] The basics are the same, and that's better software development through peer review.
No (but yes, I've seen your flame shield). And yes, you are too much into the practical aspect. As you ask in another mail, I'll explain again.
The free software movement, the GNU project or the FSF do not aim at "better software through peer review". They (we) aim at people's freedom, and better software is just a side effect [1].
On the other hand, the open source movement (no capitals for lazy typing) aims at better software for everyone through peer review; people's freedom is a side effect.
It's that easy. Not a big practical difference, only a big theoretical difference.
Now _that's_ easy enough for me :-) Thank you very much, that is exactly the point I was looking for. Yes, I was looking at it in too practical a manner, but this way it's very concise and clear.
So, thanks again,
ciao
Alexander Braun Laser Laboratorium Göttingen Hans-Adolf-Krebs-Weg 1 37077 Göttingen
fon +49 (0) 551 5035 23 fax +49 (0) 551 5035 99
email abraun3@gwdg.de