26 Aug
2005
26 Aug
'05
11:57 a.m.
Pete Bessman wrote:
"What is open source software?"
"It is software whose code is freely available for anyone to modify,
copy or distribute. As opposed to proprietary software, the use of which
is highly regulated by patents and copyright law."
i'm sure there's better, briefer answers out there.
No - because that's what it *is*.
meh - same diff ...
shayne
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:25:25 +1000, "Shayne
O'Connor"
your long ass email assumed that i was saying everyone should refer to
linux as "GNU/Linux" 100% of the time, and that whenever you refer to it
- however briefly - one should then launch into a spiel on the concept
of Open Source, its history and so on ... while this was convenient for
you to get your opinion across, it sort of melodramatizes what i'm
saying, i think, if not downright misrepresents me.
i should let Stallman explain things himself, cos in the biggest
coincidence today, my mate sent me this article from today's Sydney
Morning Herald ... what timing:
sorry to snip so much, but as i said ... who
wants/needs to use
GNU/Linux in everyday conversation and in general discussion. i
only suggest that if you're getting some sort of wiki or web page
that is going to be a primer in all things related to linux
software, then gee
- it's pretty damned easy just to write GNU/Linux.
Where are you going with this? I just wrote a long ass email about why
GNU-approved terminology is a stumbling block to adoption. The fact
that it's a subtle concept which is not immediately grasped was only
part of the picture. And ease of typing has nothing to do with it.
The fuss over the Linux trademark has diverted
attention from the real issue - the freedom to change and redistribute software, the
founder of the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation, Richard M. Stallman, says.
Last week, senior members of the Linux community had to clear up a misunderstanding over
the Linux trademark, created when an Australian lawyer sent letters to nearly 90
companies, demanding payment of a sub-licence fee for use of the Linux name.
Stallman launched the GNU Project in 1984 to develop a complete UNIX style operating
system which is free software.
Many applications developed by the project are used with Linux distributions, prompting
him to often issue reminders that the name GNU/Linux would be more appropriate.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
"Most of the time, when people call something 'Linux', it's the GNU
system with Linux as the kernel. Maybe this policy (the sub-licence fee for using the name
Linux) will encourage people to call it GNU," Stallman said. "I prefer to say
GNU/Linux' so as to give the kernel's developer a share of the credit."
He said the main point of free software was freedom.
"Free software means you're free to run it, study it, change it, redistribute
it, and distribute modified versions -- the way cooks do with recipes. What names
you're allowed to call a program is a side issue."
Asked whether he would support the model of paying for a sub-licence, Stallman said he
was concerned over issues of naming only when they helped to focus attention on the
freedom to change and redistribute software.
"In this particular case, though, the naming issue seems rather to distract
attention from freedom, so I'd rather focus the attention back where it belongs,"
he said.
Stallman said he would not seek payment to allow people to use the GNU name. "Anyone
who makes a GNU/Linux distribution ought to call it such, but most of them don't. We
won't ask people to pay to give us credit for our work," he said.
"However, if you want to call a program 'GNU this-or-that', which would
imply it's a GNU package, you should first contact the GNU Project and really make it
one."
this is pretty much what i'm talking about - it's not complicated, and
it's hardly asking too much ... but as you know (voting for bush and
all, heh heh) it's your right to do anything you want.
seriously, if
the concept of Free software is that hard to grasp,
then i doubt anyone's going to have any luck with the stuff that
*actually is confusing* - like getting a piece of software installed.
*I* had trouble with "GNU/Linux" and "Free Software," and I *wrote*
Specimen. A task which, in my experience, is almost as confusing as
installing software.
it's got nothing to do with ideology, and
everything to do with
reality. GNU/Linux. Three letters and a backslash. The FSF is so much
more than just a pain in the arse - as its name implies, it is a
foundation on which *lots* of stuff has been built.
You've got it backwards. The reality is that the use of GNU/Linux pales
in comparison to Linux, and that's not changing. A further aspect of
this reality is the use of GNU/Linux is a stumbling block to adoption by
the "unwashed masses." A musician contemplating the use of Linux is not
going to expect freeaudiosoftware.org to have a damn thing to do with
it. Hell, even the Gnome home page says "Linux" instead of
"GNU/Linux,"
and it's a fraggin' GNU project.
You think that, to some fuzzily defined extent, we should say
"GNU/Linux" because that's The Right Thing. This is ideological.
I think that, to an absolute extent, we should say
"Linux" because
that's what the rest of the world says. This is realistic.
apart from the "absolute extent", you are right. you just don't seem to
have read what i wrote properly.
when yr mate asks how you roll beats in future,
shouldn't you just say
"with a program called Specimen"?
These days, I say "I use an open source program called Specimen that I
wrote for Linux," and everybody understands me fine.