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

[Sandip Bhattacharya]

Anand Babu wrote:
> After the Free Software community succeeded in achieving its mission
> of a "Complete Free Operating System", the corporates feared running
> out of proprietary patented software businesses. Their goal was to
> make money, not Freedom. (Do you think IBM or Novell or RedHat cares
> for Freedom?). They were not able to demonstrate a money making
> business model out of Free Software to the VCs and hence the 
> term Open Source (just another new name).


Not plugging for Red Hat here, but AFAIK, unlike any other commercial Linux 
vendor, they have released each and every bit of software under FSF 
licences only. Do you think their reluctance to use the term Free software 
could have more to do with the fact that they felt it confused people? If 
that is the case, then wouldnt it be in FSF's interest that they work 
*along* with such entities to see that they give Free software enough emphasis?

Just curious, is calling a piece of software "GNU software" instead of 
"Free software" diminish the intentions of FSF?

As far as I see, the nomenclature has two purposes:
1. Giving the term Freedom enough credit.
2. Giving FSF enough credit.

The term "Free software" used without widespread and all-pervasive 
publicity, doesnt give (1) and (2). *Practically* speaking. Even if you 
say, convince a newspaper about the benefits of Free software, if they go 
ahead and print a story of Free software with all good intentions, they are 
bound to be misinterpreted and both (1) and (2) will be missed.

However, emphasising "GNU software" will give FSF enough credit, and 
concentrating on FSF's image in the public domain, can bring about better 
recall.

- 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