headers
Noah Slater | 2 Feb 2009 17:11
Gravatar

Re: Please review our new charter

On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 04:09:33PM +0100, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> "Open Source" is by design a different word for Free Software.
> http://web.archive.org/web/20060924132033/www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php
> "The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software."
>
> Regarding software, both mean the same status,
> that the software user has all four freedoms.
> Software itself cannot be a group of people.

The FSFE concerns its self with a LOT more than just software. It is also
important to support developers, groups, events, promotion, education, and all
the other things which might further the core set of principals. In this
respect, supporting Open Source and supporting Free Software is an important
distinction to make. Don't conflate the two just because the byproduct is the
same. This organisation is concerned the whole ecosystem surrounding that.

> If you want to foster open development, why not say so?
> It spreads confusion to let people think "open source" and "free software"
> are different status attributed of software. Overall they are not.
> (Experts like Debian, FSF and OSI sometimes discuss details, but this does not
> change the situation that it is all the same by design.)

The FSFE is not planning to do this, from my reading. They are making a
statement that they wish to support Open Source and Free Software as separate
groups, which is a fantastic thing.

--

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bernhard Reiter | 4 Feb 2009 09:38

Re: Please review our new charter

On Montag, 2. Februar 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 04:09:33PM +0100, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > "Open Source" is by design a different word for Free Software.
> > http://web.archive.org/web/20060924132033/www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq
> >.php "The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free
> > software."
> >
> > Regarding software, both mean the same status,
> > that the software user has all four freedoms.
> > Software itself cannot be a group of people.
>
> The FSFE concerns its self with a LOT more than just software. It is also
> important to support developers, groups, events, promotion, education, and
> all the other things which might further the core set of principals.

True, we do. We cannot prevent other people inventing new names
for the status of Software that mean the same, examples
	"open source" (marketing-term)
	"libre software" (a new attempt to avoid missunderstandings)
	"foss"	      (try-not-to-hurt-anybody-but-probably-not-clear-about-it-myself)
	"floss"	      (even-more-embracing-attempt-or-in-need-of-cleaning-teeth)
;)

> In this respect, supporting Open Source and supporting Free Software is an
> important distinction to make. 

Regarding software it is not a distinction, 
still it is important which term to use as some are harder to understand
as others and the group of people coming up with the terms have different 
agendas. The Open Source Initiative for instance wanted to sell Free Software
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Matthias Kirschner | 3 Feb 2009 13:20
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Please review our new charter

* Noah Slater <nslater@...> [2009-02-02 16:11:58 +0000]:

> The FSFE is not planning to do this, from my reading. They are making a
> statement that they wish to support Open Source and Free Software as separate
> groups, which is a fantastic thing.

Why do you think FSFE consider them as seperated groups? 

I personally do not consider Open Source and Free Software as seperate
_groups_. They are different names for the same thing. Open Source is a
failed marketing term for Free Software. Free Software is the better
term, that is why we had the "We speak about Free Software" [1]
campaign.

Best wishes,
Matthias

  1. http://www.fsfeurope.org/documents/whyfs.en.html
--

-- 
Deputy  German Coordinator, Fellowship Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) []         (http://fsfeurope.org)
Join the Fellowship of FSFE!         [][][]       (http://fsfe.org/join)
Your donation powers our work!         ||  (http://fsfeurope.org/donate)
Permalink | Reply |
headers
jamesmikedupont-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org | 3 Feb 2009 22:15
Gravatar

Re: Please review our new charter

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Matthias Kirschner <mk@...> wrote:
> * Noah Slater <nslater@...> [2009-02-02 16:11:58 +0000]:
>
>> The FSFE is not planning to do this, from my reading. They are making a
>> statement that they wish to support Open Source and Free Software as separate
>> groups, which is a fantastic thing.
>
> Why do you think FSFE consider them as seperated groups?
>
> I personally do not consider Open Source and Free Software as seperate
> _groups_. They are different names for the same thing. Open Source is a
> failed marketing term for Free Software. Free Software is the better
> term, that is why we had the "We speak about Free Software" [1]
> campaign.

Well, I also speak about free software, but I also speak about open
source. I agree that free software is better, and it is my first
choice, but if I cannot have this freedom and I am given only "open
source" then I am practical and I use that as well.
We are talking about a nation that is struggling to survive and people
who just want jobs, many have heard about open source, and we need to
reach them to tell them about free software.

So I have to remain firm that we will also talk about open source,
because that is what people know. I am willing to expand on why free
software is better and be more distinct, if you want to help I would
be grateful.

I would love to have your comments or suggestions on the charter on
how to make it better. I am open to your comments, and we need to get
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bernhard Reiter | 4 Feb 2009 09:30

Terminology (was: Please review our new charter)

On Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009, jamesmikedupont@... wrote:
> Well, I also speak about free software, but I also speak about open
> source. I agree that free software is better, and it is my first
> choice, but if I cannot have this freedom and I am given only "open
> source" then I am practical and I use that as well.

I was criticising _how_ you have used "open source".

You did use it in a way that people will falsely let to me believe that
it those might be different states for one piece of software, which is wrong.
I consider it okay to start where people stand, using the terms they know,
and then go to a better explained state.

Usually I use it like
	Free Software (another word for it is "Open Source") is good for society
	and business.

Or 
	Free Software (some say "Open Source") will foster equal chances in
	education

Maybe 
	Free Software (Open Source) is good for science because someone can
	try to falsify the results and learn from how the other have done it.

But "apples, les pommes and äpfel" let me believe there are three different 
kind of fuits on the table. Personally I even find this worse than 
using "Open Source" consitantly. If you would  do that, at least you were 
clear about what it is which is a precondition for telling anybody - and 
other people would understand me criticising you for this choice as Free
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane