Re: Free Software vs. Librous Software

I'm aware of the term "Open Source", but I am not sure that
is the term I'm looking for. It has a meaning that is slightly
different from "Free Software". Of course, many people consider
this difference in meanining to be insignificant, but not
everyone.

For example, Richard Stallman urges people to support the
Free Software philosophy *instead* of supporting the Open
Source philosophy. Obviously he considers the difference
between "Free Software" and "Open Source" to be significant.

Now, true, Richard Stallman might be nitpicking. But even
if he is, that does not change the fact that he has a
point.

"Liberous Software" (and yes, I *do* stand corrected over
the spelling) on the other hand, means *exactly* the same
thing as "Free Software", except that it is not subject
to the same ambiguity over the word "Free".

Also, unlike other ambiguities, like that over the term
"hacker", the ambiguity over the term "Free Software" is
a *legitimate* ambiguity. It can be historically
demonstrated that a super-class of programmers were
referred to as "hackers" long before a bunch of computer
saboteurs duped the press into giving *them* that title.
However, that's not the case with the term "Free Software".
The term "free" was used in reference *both* to speech
*and* to beer, *long* before the term "Free Software"
was first coined.

Isaac Hummel wrote:

>We do have such a term already: Open Source. It is free of the ambiguity
>that you stated and I believe that it was coined for the same reason
>that you wanted to coin "librous" (incidentally, it should be liberous,
>not librous; librous would mean bookish or booklike).
>
>-Isaac Hummel
>
>_______________________________________________
>annoyances mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://michelangelo.renaissoft.com/mailman/listinfo/annoyances
>
>