on Sun, May 06, 2001 at 03:12:30PM -0800, Ethan Benson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 12:39:59AM +0100, raphael calvelli wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > I hope this question is not too much off topic, but this looks a good > > place to ask it: > > > > - "free software" is confusing because "free" is "freedom" and "zero > > costing" together; > > only in the broken english language. i think most others have more > distinction between freedom and cost. > > > - "open source" is also confusing because of the slight differences > > between GPL and just Open source softwares; > > some licences other then the GPL are considered Free Software licences. > the problem with `Open Source' is it waters down the philisophical > issue of freedom. `OpenSource' has also accepted licences which > cannot be considered Free (Apple's).
Not AFAIK. Which Apple license? The Open Source Initiative approved
licenses list doesn't include it, and I know its status has been
discussed on the license-discuss list within the past few months (I'm
reviewing the posts now). It appears as if both the public disclosure
and private use portions of the license violate OSD.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html
> > So, what about use of the term "libre software" ? It is already
> > working in italian "libero", french "libre" and spanish "libre".
>
> in fact the Free Software Foundation recommends that the native terms
> be used in different locales, so when dealing with the french one
> should use `libre software'. english speakers are doomed to be
> confused, so they simply have to educated.
Pointer?
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org
pgpr9A4pFuccQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
