Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> wrote:
> The second, on the other hand, makes a reference to some specific and well
> known notion "Free Software". A few people tried to define this notion; the
> FSF was the first as far as I know, and all definitions say roughly the same
> thing, including the right to commercially redistribute the software.

  Personally I do not agree with their definition, and I find their
hijacking of the word "free" for their own purposes preposterous.

  The word "free" doesn't change its meaning if you attach the word
"software" to it (in the same way as it doesn't change meaning if you
attach the word "book" to it). The word "free" doesn't change meaning
if you start writing it with a capital letter.

  What the FSF has done is that they have completely redefined the meaning
of the word, and they have been bullying everyone to stick to *their*
definition of it, rather than the real definition.

  Their comparison to "free speech" is absurd and ridiculous, and doesn't
really apply to software licenses (at most it could apply to the contents
of the software, not how it's distributed).

  It wouldn't bother me so much if there weren't so many people brainwashed
by the FSF who roam the internet bullying and outright attacking any free
software which does not conform to *their* definition to the letter. The
most preposterous thing they do is that they say "this is not free software"
from programs which are perfectly free.

> >   (The same could be said about "open source". "Open" in common parlance,
> > in this context, means "you can look at it, you can access it, you can
> > get it, you can modify it".

> I find that one far fetched. In common parlance, "open" applies to a door or
> a box, and that has nothing to do with software source code.

  I was talking in the *context* of software. When you say "open source",
the "source" part is referring to the source code of the program, and
naturally "open" means "for everyone to see".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp  wrote in message <4878c2d7@news.povray.org>:
>   The word "free" doesn't change its meaning if you attach the word
> "software" to it

Yes it does: since there was no common use of this particular pair of words
before the FSF, it becomes a trademark.

>   What the FSF has done is that they have completely redefined the meaning
> of the word

So do most commercial companies and all politic parties in the world.

>   Their comparison to "free speech" is absurd and ridiculous

Fortunately, there is no such comparison. This has been explained to you
twice in the last few weeks.

>   I was talking in the *context* of software. When you say "open source",
> the "source" part is referring to the source code of the program, and
> naturally "open" means "for everyone to see".

No. Before the Open Source Initiative, it meant nothing. "For everyone to
see" was spelt "available", not "open".

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas George wrote:
> For example, if you read somewhere "I intend to vote democratic", you will
> not answer "that is just silly, no candidate intend to abolish democracy, all
> are democratic:

Actually, to be precise, none are democratic, or you wouldn't be voting 
for politicians.  If you want to make the example work, say "I'm voting 
republican" and answer "nobody wants to abolish the republic." </nit> ;-)

> I find that one far fetched. In common parlance, "open" applies to a door or
> a box, and that has nothing to do with software source code.

Sun used "Open" for a long time to mean many things, and it basically 
meant "we'll give you the specs so you can reimplement it on your 
operating system."  Much the same way that .NET is "open".

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Will people PLEASE stop using the term "free software" to mean what
> the FSF has distorted it to mean? Pretty please?


Those are terms with a very well know meaning in the software scene.

Warp, are you a POV-ray developer?

bye
as

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

> So what exactly is your problem??? - I can tell you: You did not _read_, but 
> just want to cause arguments about the definition of "free software".
> 
> *plonk*

Thorsten, I hope you didn't really banned me. I have the utmost respect
for POV-developers (the person that enlightened me on POV-ray was Dan
Farmer in the mid nineties. Don't know if he's still among the
POV-developers). As a non native english speaker I might have sounded
too harsh or something. I was expecting an answer like Jerome's, I know
POV-ray was born before the GPL and the widespread internet usage for
software downloads, so the peculiar license that sets terms for the cost
of the media on which the program is shipped etc.

Now, you just said POV-4 will be GPLv3. Jerome said he thinks it won't.
Any better place to ask or *read*? Is the code for POV-4 available
somewhere to review and help with the effort?

bye
Alessio

Post a reply to this message

> Now, you just said POV-4 will be GPLv3. Jerome said he thinks it won't.
> Any better place to ask or *read*? Is the code for POV-4 available
> somewhere to review and help with the effort?

Actually I think POV-4 will be LGPL which is "freer" than GPLv3,
correct me if I'm wrong.

As for "Open Source" I'm not sure what manner of source
code publishing is considered to pass muster by the lawyers.
Fairly current (February) beta source for 3.7 v25b is available at
http://www.povray.org/beta/source/
POV probably could benefit from a code repository though...
Setting up VS C++ 2005 Express (free "beer") to
use the Zoom library is non-trivial, so it might be good to
figure out a way to patch the compiler with libraries and
stuff from a repository. Eventually that should take some of
the pressure off of Chris Cason, who is doing the majority
of new code.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:

> POV probably could benefit from a code repository though...

Well, definitely... that would be great...

> Setting up VS C++ 2005 Express (free "beer") to

What's wrong with gcc + one of the many editors around?

> the pressure off of Chris Cason, who is doing the majority
> of new code. 

Question. I am not sure why windows and linux (unix) releases are
'disconnected'. Is this due to special enhancements provided by the
windows GUI?

bye
as

Post a reply to this message

> Question. I am not sure why windows and linux (unix) releases are
> 'disconnected'. Is this due to special enhancements provided by the
> windows GUI?

Yeah, I think it's something like that. (Boost not Zoom, oops)
http://www.boost.org/
http://www.nabble.com/Patch-for-building-Boost-with-GCC-4.4.0-td17982932.html

POV for Windows uses Codemax for the editor, plus there's settings
in registry, so there needs to be a bit of alternate code to build
POV for Linux.

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> Alessio Sangalli wrote:
> > but any plan to make POV-ray free software? What is the problem?
>
> Get a clue by first reading the relevant newsgroups and you would not have
> to troll around with already answered questions: First, POV-Ray is free
> unless you apply your definition of "free software" (whatever it may be, you
> choice, so it is as random as that of everybody else), second, a GPL 3
> relicensing will happen in the future as was already said before.
>
> So what exactly is your problem??? - I can tell you: You did not _read_, but
> just want to cause arguments about the definition of "free software".
>
> *plonk*
>
>  Thorsten, POV-Team

If you had added the relevant information to the documentation or wiki, then
there would be no need for anyone to troll for already answered questions. If
the topic is so popular that it gets raised repeatedly, then you should take
additional steps so that the information is quickly and easily accessible.
There's no reason for you to be so crude and disrespectful.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 12 Jul 2008 11:03:53 -0400, Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org>
wrote:

>Warp  wrote in message <4878c2d7@news.povray.org>:
>>   The word "free" doesn't change its meaning if you attach the word
>> "software" to it
>
>Yes it does: since there was no common use of this particular pair of words
>before the FSF, it becomes a trademark.

For the last twenty years, or so, I've understood free software to have no cost.
I'm with Warp on this one.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message