The FSF Europe recommends: avoid SourceForge

[MJ Ray]

Phil:
> Open source and free software are the same thing (essentially) with a 
> different name.
> Would a rose by another name smell as sweet?

Yes, but one man says it is pink, while another says it is red, so there is
disagreement.

> I think it would be more effective if you didn't come across so
> extreme.

Sorry, I meant death on a corporate level, not a personal one.

> > Harsh, I know, but a community can't go two ways at once and still
> > be one community.
> Sure it can. And in fact the free software community often moves
> in several directions at the same time. So we have Linux and BSD
> and Hurd. We have Gtk+ and Qt and Tk. We have GNOME and KDE. We
> have INN and leafnode and sn. We have no end of news readers and
> mail clients.

None of the others are incompatible directions with the others, merely
different paths to roughly the same objectives.  That's why they can
co-exist happily, if not always totally peacefully.

Is there place for non-free software in the free software community? 
Clearly not, by definition.  They cannot co-exist.

> >  They've already had one failed fork attempt with
> > "open source"
> That's a rebranding program not a fork attempt. A rose would
> still be a rose if I decided to call it a "wug" as well.

OSI include licences as meeting their definition that FSF doesn't.  The
generic term "Open Source" includes things (eg from Sun, MS et al) that
neither would endorse.  (This last is why I believe that OSI's rebranding
has failed and made our task harder, not easier.)

Oh, and if you call it a wug, I shall insist the plural is wugfskz.
-- 
MJR