It all boils down to language and rhetorical strategy. rms claims that OBSD "encourages" the use of "non-free" software. The OBSD folks consider that incorrect and slanderous.
Instead of "tis so - tis not" argumentation, I propose a search, not for agreement, but for clear, simple, and pragmatic language. I propose the following terms, gory details and rationale following: laissez-faire software - for bsd-style licensing covenanted software - for gpl stuff exclusivist licensing - proprietary, but paying customers get access to source usufruct licensing - for standard, no-source proprietary sw; usufruct is the legal right to use and derive profit or benefit from property that belongs to another person, as long as the property is not damaged. By now it's painfully obvious that the terms "free" and "non-free" are (ab)used so often because they are semantically hollow and can be hammered into any shape you please. So you end up with lots of "when I say free, I mean ..."; a dissertation ensues, no two people agree on the meanings, and everybody gets all excited when in fact they're not even talking about the same thing. Once "open-source" enters the picture language becomes even less reliable. Try explaining the difference between "free" and "open-source" to the average non-geek and be rewarded with an indulgent chuckle and the equivalent of "that's nice. you kids have fun, now." Then you get the hucksters selling "libre", as if that comes with some special semantic sauce that will keep your goulash bug-free. Enough already. Rhetorically, the language of "free software" is rms' home turf. For better or for worse, many people look to him for the definition of "free". So if you engage in the "mine's freer than yours" debate, you're fighting him where he is most comfortable and powerful, and you're probably going to lose and get very pissed off in the process. He's a very, very clever rhetorician, after all. The trick is to reframe the debate away from the mystical goo-goo to simple and pragmatic interests and language. The core issue is licensing and its attendant legal obligations and dispensations. Not freedom and certainly not Freedom; without the licenses and legal systems, all the talk about freedom is just hot air. The nature of freedom has been debated for thousands of years and we still can't agree, but everybody understands compulsion and the law. Law, not sermonizing, is what makes freedom, and nobody needs to be told what freedom is; we're all capable of judging whether a legal instrument leaves us free or bound. So what's needed is simple but expressive language that clarifies the fundamental pragmatic differences between the GPL and BSD worlds. Then rms could decline to recommend OBSD, but could explain his reasons without slandering OBSD. My best shot: For GPL-licensed software I recommend the term "covenant(ed) software". So-called "free software", as rms uses the term, is totally dependent on the GPL, which leverages the State's monopoly on violence to compel modifiers of the software to offer their mods to the public. However, nobody can be compelled to use or modify GPL software; hence the term "covenanted", which is intended to convey the essential nature of the GPL as a kind of voluntary contractual agreement, as it were. If somebody asks "What is the GPL?" the simple answer "a kind of covenant; you can enter into it but you have to agree to its rules" just about says it all. Nothing wrong with the GPL; what's wrong is the claim that it - and only it - is some kind of cornerstone of f(F)reedom. Look carefully and you see that the freedom rms talks about seems to be some kind of magical humour that circulates only amongst those who agree to enter into the GPL covenant. But whether GPL acolytes feel a little thrill of freedom juice coursing through their souls as they work on their software or not is utterly irrelevant; what matters is the law. An advantage of the term "covenanted software" is that it is not likely to be construed as necessarily a negative term, and hence might be acceptable to RMS et al. A related but less charitable term: cultic. Others: the GPL Compact; communitarian. Etc. Anything would be preferable to "free". For BSD-style licensing I recommend the term "laissez-faire software". I reckon I needn't go into the rationale for this terminology on this list. One might argue that any licensed product involves a covenant of some kind, but I'm not sure I would agree. To me a covenant involves some kind of positive obligations and a formally/legally defined community, but I see OBSD licensing as essentially negative, like any good law - you don't have to enter into any covenant or formal community, you can do what ever you want with my software, but don't claim you wrote it, etc. (I think that's good.) "Laissez-faire" strikes me as a near perfect fit for OBSD, but I'm undecided as to whether "non-covenanted" fits. I recommend avoiding the term "non-free software" like the plague since it is even more meaningless than "free software" and uses a broad brush cover a variety of distinct species. Lots of useful terms,. e.g. proprietary. But I'm kind of leaning towards "exclusive licensing", to describe licensing that reserves source code access to the vendor and possibly the individual client. I use a terrific XML editor called XXE, and if you buy a license you get the source; send 'em more money, and you can use the source in your own products, etc. "Exclusive" seems pretty accurate and expressive for that sort of thing. Not sure about e.g. MS stuff, maybe "usufruct licensing"; a little technical, but very accurate (google it). Now rms might say, "I don't recommend OBSD, because it is laissez-faire software, and we think laissez-faire software is unethical; we prefer convenanted software." The OBSD camp could respond "Bully for you! we think laissez-fair software is entirely ethical, and we think covenanted software is overly restrictive but not unethical." Or he could stick with "OBSD encourages use of non-free software", to which one might reply "laissez-faire licensing 'lets-you-do' whatever the hell you want to do, including purchase usufruct software, which must be what you mean by non-free". To "by using non-free software, you surrender your freedom", I reply "Freedom has nothing to do with it; I cannot surrender something I've never had, namely the right to steal somebody else's property, which is how the law treats usufruct software, whether you like it or not. Nor do publishers of covenanted and laissez-faire software have any effect on my freedoms, but they do enlarge the body of software that I can legally use in various ways." Philosophical gobbledy-gook need never enter into it; if somebody asks "but is OBSD free software", the response might be something like "how the hell would I know, I'm not a philosopher, all I know is it _lets me do_ (laissez-faire) whatever I want with it", turning the conversation away from hocus-pocus and toward pragmatics. Sort of like "shut up and code" for non-coders, now that I think about it. I speculate that most non-geeks could look at that, understand more-or-less accurately what the idea is, and make up their own minds. Or to put it another way, he pulls a knife (ethics, philosophizing, etc.), you pull a gun (law, pragmatics.) I wonder what would happen if a large number of people in the tech community were to simply decline to be drawn in to the "free software" rhetorical trap. "Covenanted", "laissez-faire", "exclusivist", and "usufruct" licensing are the best alternative terms I've come up with, but I'd be interested in other language. Enough outta me, -ogregg
