On Monday, 8. June 2009 09:58:03 olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 09:39:51AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > On Thursday, 4. June 2009 13:45:55 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > > And I just spotted something missing: The word "free" :)
>
> Well, not exactly hard to spot, considering that I explicitely mentioned
> leaving it out... ;-)
:)
I thought it damn important, but read below for the reasons why I don't think
so anymore...
> > And adding these four letters suffices to tell them the essence
> > without relying on previous knowledge:
>
> I don't agree. People not familiar with GNU philosophy will either
> misread it, or ignore it alltogether.
Do you mean the free/gratis/libre part?
I tend to forget about that... free has only one meaning in my mind ;)
But you're right. That isn't true for most people, and those would be
confused. And those who understand "free "also understand "GNU"...
I just had that problem again today:
me: "Is it free?"
other: "It's gratis for open source projects, so it's free."
me: "That's isn't free."
:-)
> BTW, if we really want to mention licensing, we should mention GPLv3
> rather than just "free" I think. This way it would actually be a
> distinguishing point.
>
> It is also known to be controversial -- no doubt it would attract
> certain kinds of people, and repell others... Do we want that?
I don't know if it would really attract enough people.
Especially since the GPLv3 part is currently just a dream - though a nice one
:-)
Best wishes,
Arne
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
- singing a part of the history of free software -
http://infinite-hands.draketo.de
