Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 11:14:23 -0800 From: David Johnson <djohnson@acuson.com> To: "Kenneth P. Stox" <stox@imagescape.com> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT - Not a bunch of Message-ID: <3A5A118F.2E06FCDD@acuson.com> References: <XFMail.010107145424.stox@imagescape.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Kenneth P. Stox" wrote: > > What do you think the average person would interpret "free software" as ? > > Software that's not opressed, or software that has no cost ? Give me a > > break. > > I live in a "free" country ( Please, let us not get into a political debate > about this statement ). Does that mean it is without cost ? I don't think so, > living in a "free" country has enormous cost, the least of which involves the > IRS. Let's see, "free <object>" has always meants "without cost. Examples include "free doughnuts", "free gravel", and the ubiquitous "free beer". Software is not really an object, but it is ludicrous to think that software could be oppressed. Only people can be oppressed. Likewise, saying that Free Software is software with the political/natural/moral right to vote, assemble, speak, worship, own firearms, not having to quarter soldiers, etc, is beyond ludicrous, it's asinine. When people hear the words "free software", if they haven't read Stallman's little red book, they will naturally assume it means "free of cost". And they would be correct, if incomplete. > > Those sure seem to be compulsions. They are small and simple, but they are > > compulsions. So even BSD licenced software is not truly "free software" by > > your foolish definitions. > > Yes, I guess I am a fool for actually being capable of using a dictionary. From > the numerous mispellings in your postings, it does seem that you are incapable > of doing so. My "foolish" definitions are the same used by Richard Stallman and > Eric S. Raymond. Your definition is consistent with the the one used by MSN, > $400 free when you agree to spend $24.95/month for three years. I can't help it > if your understanding of the language is defined by Madison Avenue. As for myself, I can only go off of the dictionary definitions. My dictionary has over a dozen definitions of "free".They range from "free electron" to "free end of a rope". None of these definitions fit the MSN term whatsoever. A couple do fit the ESR/RMS definitions, but "free as in 'free speech'" is not one of them. If I restrict someone's right to free speech I will go to jail. But not even the most ardent of Free Software supporters advocates arresting the authors of proprietary software. When one looks at the "natural" or "unalienable" rights commonly viewed as the innate rights of human beings, they all have one thing in common. They all reside in the personal domain of a single human being. A clear example is freedom of the press. The press (being a publisher) has the right to issue a publication. But the publishers does not have the right to compel people to read his works, nor do people have the right to compel publishers to publish. Those acts leave the domain of the personal, and are no longer rights. To place "free software" in the same category as "free speech" does not work. The right to publish your own original software under a Free license is certainly in accord with freedom of the press, but a natural right to modify and redistribute someone else's software leaves the bounds of the personal. You can only get that privilege by compelling another person to act. So Free Software is not a right, though it may be an attribute. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A5A118F.2E06FCDD>