[Fsf-friends] Continuation....of Basics......

[Sandip Bhattacharya]

Ramanraj K wrote:
>> 
>> Do read the Opensource definition at least once - 
>> http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
>> 
> Could you please explain why we should go out of our way to read 
> definitions by third parties?
> 

So that when you go to the town explaining the virtues of your philosophy 
and trashing others, you dont end up sounding misinformed. To actually 
espouse a cause for a revolution, first understand what you are revolting 
against.


> X can write a FOO_BAR license agreement and define FOO_BAR as he 
> pleases.  X could say "FOO_BAR" means such and such thing.  The OSI has 
> chosen to write an "Open Source" definition, inventing new meanings for 
> the expression "Open Source".  Please understand that merely because OSI 
> has defined FOO_BAR or Open Source to mean certain things, the 
> expression does not loose its generic meanings.  

and pray how is that different from FSF claiming new meanings for the 
expression "Free software". Do you mean to say that this term can also be 
used interchangeably with its generic meanings?


> Non-free software can 
> fairly and correctly describe their software as open source, if they do 
>   publish source code, and the OSI or anyone else cannot complain about 
> it.  Probably the OSI and its friends can claim that the non-free 
> software is not open source within the meaning of their private 
> definitions, which is too narrow to be interesting to us. 

Yes, OSI can say that it is not OSI compliant.

The same happens when people come and say (ignorantly) that Linux and GNU 
programs are freeware or free software.

> You could show respect to the posters to this list, while trying to 
> elicit answers to clear your doubts.  Try to free your mind - that 
> should help.

If by showing respect you mean that I should blindly accept whatever others 
say without being able to argue their position, ... well I am sorry for 
being disrespectful.

> You may also try your luck asking the OSI, if the OSI has an open 
> mailing list like this.

:) Why this animosity to OSI? I am not trying to defend OSI or anything! I 
merely said that just as people are touchy about the usage of the word 
"Free", they should also be careful of their usage of other similar terms. 
Dismissing Microsoft's shared source program as Opensource is hypocritical 
to say the least, and offensive for some.

>> Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.
>> 
>> 1. Free ...
>    [the redundant stuff snipped by me]
> 

I am sure you didnt read it this time too. :)


I am here because I have the highest of respect for the great work FSF is 
doing. But that work gets demeaned with exhibition of dismissiveness and 
contempt of others who have atleast partly the same social goals as you do.

- Sandip

-- 
Sandip Bhattacharya    *    Puroga Technologies   *     sandip@puroga.com
Work: http://www.puroga.com        *         Home: http://www.sandipb.net

PGP/GPG Signature: 51A4 6C57 4BC6 8C82 6A65 AE78 B1A1 2280 A129 0FF3