Re: FWB: Foss with benefits
Charles Cossé <[email protected]> Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:42:15 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.fsf.education.europe |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CABtoULhS0Bpf93DTHt42kjPtU=5rKPO=d3tXRv6VXQSh0vw_sw@mail.gmail.com> |
--===============7645535223330478382== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdca0c02685f1050e709e71 --047d7bdca0c02685f1050e709e71 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi again, On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Andrew 'Leny' Lindley < [email protected]> wrote: > On Friday 06 Feb 2015 02:07:11 Charles Coss=C3=A9 wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > In light of points made in this conversation I spent some time reviewin= g > > FSF literature and definitions. At the end of "Why Open Source misses > the > > point of Free Software" > > <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html> > there is > > the following: > > > > Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work on an > > > > > activity that calls itself =E2=80=9Copen.=E2=80=9D Even if the activi= ty is good in and > of > > > itself, each contribution you make does a little harm on the side. > (src > > > <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html>) > > > > At the risk of cluttering simple sentences I have modified my text > > throughout to read "free/open-source (GPL'd) education software", so as > not > > to preclude anyone from participating or endorsing the project. > > Thanks, but because of the confusion between the distinct meanings of > 'free' > the fully inclusive term Free Software prefers is (according to RMS) Free > Libre Open Source Software. > The thing is, there are 2+ audiences reading the pages in question, and I'm almost certain that most people will be more confused by anything but simple term "open source" ... so how about this: I'll use the term "GPLv3'd" throughout, and modify my templates so that I can add a link (current limitation of my own making) ... and link to a full-on explanation of the differences in terminology (my explanation, and further links to FSF pages). I think that would satisfy pretty much everything ... do you agree= ? > > Here is an issue I have with much of what I read today: The notions of > > fundamental "rights and wrongs" are used often. Personally, I don't > > believe that there are such things at all ... in the universe. That h= as > > nothing to do with software, or religion, or anything except my > > cosmology. So FSF philosophy alienates me long before considerations = of > > software ... whether I agree with the goals or not. That argument is > > loaded with implicit assumptions that have nothing to do with software. > > To draw on Michael J Sandel's 'Justice,' which I recommend to you. If yo= u > believe there is no such thing as rights and wrongs (as human truths) do > you > propose to cook and eat your own children at some point? > Simply not believing in apriori, universal right and wrong does not imply that I would therefore propose such a thing. People can refrain from such things on their own, for obvious reasons, without the need to invoke unprovable philosophical arguments. > > > > "Education <https://www.gnu.org/education/>" is at the core of FSF's > > mission, but it is really just *Computer Science* Education that FSF is > > referring to, as far as I can tell. > > > > Free Software supports education, proprietary software forbids > education. ( > > > src <https://www.gnu.org/education/>) > > > > If, for example, I were to put a new version of my FSF-listed game > > TuxMathScrabble online without GPL-ing it, that certainly isn't > > "forbidding" any education that it was ever intended for, i.e. kids to > > *use*. In fact, it's JavaScript, so Computer Science students can even > > still read the code and learn. > > There would be legal impediments to them using what they learned from it. > I don't buy that in this case. If it's my creation and I want people to use what they learn from studying it, but just don't GPL it, then there are no legal impediments. Look into cleanroom reverse engineering if you want the gory details of the > relevant laws. > I'm gonna save my eyesight for something else ... but I believe you that the legalese is out there. > Further we are discussing free in the sense of liberty / rights not lack = of > encumbrance. You have made a common mistaken conflation of the two. > I am talking about liberty/rights ... reading the above I don't see anything related to a "lack of encumbrance" ... what / who's encumbrance? Charles > > Leny > > _______________________________________________ > European "Free Software in Education" mailing list > > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-eu > --047d7bdca0c02685f1050e709e71 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">Hi again,<br><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div clas= s=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Andrew 'Leny' Lin= dley <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" ta= rget=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockq= uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc = solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On Friday 06 Feb 2015 02:07:11 Cha= rles Coss=C3=A9 wrote:<br> > Hi All,<br> ><br> > In light of points made in this conversation I spent some time reviewi= ng<br> > FSF literature and definitions.=C2=A0 =C2=A0At the end of "Why Op= en Source misses the<br> > point of Free Software"<br> </span>> <<a href=3D"https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misse= s-the-point.html" target=3D"_blank">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-sou= rce-misses-the-point.html</a>> there is<br> <span class=3D"">> the following:<br> ><br> > Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work on a= n<br> ><br> > > activity that calls itself =E2=80=9Copen.=E2=80=9D Even if the ac= tivity is good in and of<br> > > itself, each contribution you make does a little harm on the side= .=C2=A0 (src<br> </span>> > <<a href=3D"https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-= misses-the-point.html" target=3D"_blank">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ope= n-source-misses-the-point.html</a>>)<br> <span class=3D"">><br> > At the risk of cluttering simple sentences I have modified my text<br> > throughout to read "free/open-source (GPL'd) education softwa= re", so as not<br> > to preclude anyone from participating or endorsing the project.<br> <br> </span>Thanks, but because of the confusion between the distinct meanings o= f 'free'<br> the fully inclusive term Free Software prefers is (according to RMS) Free<b= r> Libre Open Source Software.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>The thing is, th= ere are 2+ audiences reading the pages in question, and I'm almost cert= ain that most people will be more confused by anything but simple term &quo= t;open source" ... so how about this:=C2=A0 I'll use the term &quo= t;GPLv3'd" throughout, and modify my templates so that I can add a= link (current limitation of my own making) ... and link to a full-on expla= nation of the differences in terminology (my explanation, and further links= to FSF pages).=C2=A0 I think that would satisfy pretty much everything ...= do you agree?<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>=C2=A0<br></div><bl= ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #= ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""> > Here is an issue I have with much of what I read today:=C2=A0 The noti= ons of<br> > fundamental "rights and wrongs" are used often.=C2=A0 Person= ally, I don't<br> > believe that there are such things at all ... in the universe.=C2=A0 = =C2=A0That has<br> > nothing to do with software, or religion, or anything except my<br> > cosmology.=C2=A0 =C2=A0So FSF philosophy alienates me long before cons= iderations of<br> > software ... whether I agree with the goals or not.=C2=A0 That argumen= t is<br> > loaded with implicit assumptions that have nothing to do with software= .<br> <br> </span>To draw on Michael J Sandel's 'Justice,' which I recomme= nd to you.=C2=A0 If you<br> believe there is no such thing as rights and wrongs (as human truths) do yo= u<br> propose to cook and eat your own children at some point?<br></blockquote><d= iv><br></div><div>Simply not believing in apriori, universal right and wron= g does not imply that I would therefore propose such a thing.=C2=A0=C2=A0 P= eople can refrain from such things on their own, for obvious reasons, witho= ut the need to invoke unprovable philosophical arguments.<br> <br></div><bl= ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #= ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br> ><br> > "Education <<a href=3D"https://www.gnu.org/education/" target= =3D"_blank">https://www.gnu.org/education/</a>>" is at the core of = FSF's<br> > mission, but it is really just *Computer Science* Education that FSF i= s<br> <span class=3D"">> referring to, as far as I can tell.<br> ><br> > Free Software supports education, proprietary software forbids educati= on.=C2=A0 (<br> </span>> > src <<a href=3D"https://www.gnu.org/education/" target= =3D"_blank">https://www.gnu.org/education/</a>>)<br> <span class=3D"">><br> > If, for example, I were to put a new version of my FSF-listed game<br> > TuxMathScrabble online without GPL-ing it, that certainly isn't<br= > > "forbidding" any education that it was ever intended for, i.= e. kids to<br> </span>> *use*. In fact, it's JavaScript, so Computer Science studen= ts can even<br> <span class=3D"">> still read the code and learn.<br> <br> </span>There would be legal impediments to them using what they learned fro= m it.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't buy that in this case= .=C2=A0 If it's my creation and I want people to use what they learn fr= om studying it, but just don't GPL it, then there are no legal impedime= nts.=C2=A0 <br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:= 0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Look into cleanroom reverse engineering if you want the gory details of the= <br> relevant laws.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm gonna save my ey= esight for something else ... but I believe you that the legalese is out th= ere.=C2=A0=C2=A0 <br></div><div>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_= quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1= ex"> Further we are discussing free in the sense of liberty / rights not lack of= <br> encumbrance.=C2=A0 You have made a common mistaken conflation of the two.<b= r></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am talking about liberty/rights ... re= ading the above I don't see anything related to a "lack of encumbr= ance" ... what / who's encumbrance?<br><br></div><div>Charles<br><= /div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0= 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br> Leny<br> </font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br> _______________________________________________<br> European "Free Software in Education" mailing list<br> <br> <a href=3D"https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-eu" target=3D"_blank"= >https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-eu</a><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div> --047d7bdca0c02685f1050e709e71-- --===============7645535223330478382== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ European "Free Software in Education" mailing list https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-eu --===============7645535223330478382==--