On 15-Jul-08 0:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:33:34 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:51:59 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>>> Words do have more than a single definition, typically. ;-)
>>>>   Tell that to the FSF.
>>> Well, you're the one saying you don't understand their usage....
>>   I didn't say I don't understand it. I said I completely disagree with
>>   it.
> 
> So you don't think there's any definition of "free" that applies other 
> than "free of cost"?  

No, he thinks free of cost is *one* of the legitimate interpretations of 
free.

> Interesting interpretation of the English language, that....

The interpretation of the English language that is interesting is: 'this 
is not free software because it is free (of cost)'. And the surprise is 
that there are people who speak English and think this is logical. As 
many have said before: the FSF should never have claimed free software 
as a concept. There were a couple of ways out, e.g. 'free software' of 
Free Software, both will notify that a concept is meant that differs 
from the colloquial combination of the words free and software. Even 
better would have been FSF compliant software or similar.
I have a feeling that this is a concept that was influenced in some way 
by the American copyright and patent system. At least if I read the FSF 
definition of 'free software' it feels as if it was written by a group 
of aliens without any knowledge of the Dutch (or any other European) 
copyright and patent system. Which is probably true ;). Perhaps it would 
help if Americans would understand that something they feel passionate 
about (free software, American football, country music) might be 
perceived as just another folklore thing overseas. Don't get me wrong, 
free software (in any of its various meanings) does have a role also in 
Europe, just as there is a place for the Amsterdam Admirals and Ilse 
DeLange, but why the fuss?

Post a reply to this message