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

[Krishna Pagadala]

> Just as others take the word "free" in free software
> literally, you are taking "open source" literally.


That in essence captures the whole debate.

I think that the common man can get confused by both
"open source" and "free software" and each of the
supporting groups are trying to address it in their
own ways.

I see validity in both the terms, however FSF wants to
talks about "free as in freedom" and thinks that "free
software" is more appropriate and less prone to misuse
than "open source", as the last few years have shown. 

There are precendents for using "free" to mean
freedom, as in "free people, free country".

FSF uses "free" because it wants to bring "freedom of
software" to the notice of people. The people who use
"open source" typically tend to give less importance
to freedom.
e.g. Misinterpreting Copyright by Richard Stallman
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
In which RMS lays out the case for copyrights of
shorter length etc..

I would sum up the philosophy of FSF to be that of 
"Software Should Not Have Owners"
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-free.html

That is the real difference between FSF and its
supporters and supporters of "open source".


For whats its worth I use "Free(dom) Software" in
writing, and "Freedom software/Free Software"
interchangebly when talking.

Thanks
Krishna

=====
To Reflect, to Inspire and to Empower
http://www.employees.org/~krishnap/


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail