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

[Ramanraj K]

Sandip Bhattacharya 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.

Nonsense.

> 
> 
>> 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?

Reading the license that accompanies the computer program usually helps 
a lot to understand if the computer program is free or non-free.  But, 
you have already been told about this rather elaborately.

"Free software" is a generic expression that could be aptly used to 
describe computer programs released under the GPL or like free licences. 
     It has nothing to do with other incidental matters.

> 
> 
>> 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.

Gnu/Linux and Gnu programs _are_ free software.

Our friend Sriharsha modestly said that he is new to free software, but 
was fairly accurate on many issues. I am surprised that someone from 
lug-delhi.org, who could be expected to be mature,  should troll 
unabashedly here.

> 
>> 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.

Please make you point without abusing anyone here.

> 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.

Please make an effort to _show_ some respect :)

"Open Source Initiative" is after all a marketing program for Free 
Software. The OSI says it, we know it, and everybody but legislatures 
seem to know it.  Its time you knew about it.

Recently, a thread was initiated by Bharathi, touching upon introducing 
free software in school syllabuses but was never discussed with this 
sort of vigour.  Showing vehement interest in such issues as well, could 
make a big difference in taking free software to all.

Bye :)