Subject: Re: GNU License for Hardware
From: Adam 'WeirdArms' Wiggins <awiggins@cse.unsw.EDU.AU>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:14:47 +1000 (EST)

	I'm not sure if its the back log of our mail server or the time
difference or what but I've asked once before and it seems I have to ask
again (and add more SPAM in the process). Please move the discussion back
on TOPIC (ie licencing, or hardware design) or remove the PLEB mail alias
(not to mention the others) from the cc. I'm getting 3 copies of each post
on this utter SPAM and my list as well as the others are getting crap
totally unrelated to the topic we were discussing. So please people kill
the philosophy debate or take it somewhere else.

	Cheers Adam



On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Tom Hull wrote:

> One of RMS's more dubious accomplishments is that people all over the world
> are agonizing that "free" as in "free software" doesn't have anything to do
> with price. Moreover, they soured to the point where they're even disparaging
> happy hour (a/k/a "free beer").
> 
> The fact is that free (unrestricted) availability of software and the freedom
> (opportunity) to change it can only be universally possible by making software
> available free of charge. It is precisely the confluence of all of these shades
> of meaning that makes "free software" the ideal term.
> 
> One way to see this link between free price and the other freedoms that RMS
> cherishes is to observe that proprietary software interests restrict those
> freedoms precisely in order to limit availability and jack up the price and
> profits they covet. (Even to the further detriment of their customers.)
> 
> The irony of this is that while RMS keeps harping on the semantics of libre
> vs. gratuit, the very first requirement set forth in the OSD insists on free
> (no royalty or fee) redistribution for "open source" software. The title may
> say "Open Source Definition", but the OSD is the clearest definition of free
> software we have to date.
> 
> In an earlier email to this group, RMS characterized "the Open Source movement"
> as "rejecting all talk of freedom, principle and non-material benefits." It
> seems closer to the mark to suggest that it is RMS who has wrapped himself up
> so exclusively in the principle of freedom that he rejects all talk of material
> benefits. Such a stance is terribly self-limiting. Throughout the whole history
> of the capitalist era, freedom and material wealth and comfort have been
> intertwined inextricably. And nowhere is the economic benefit of freedom more
> clear than in software -- with its unique ability to support near-infinite
> reproduction at near-zero cost.
> 
> RMS has said that he considers OSI and FSF to be like "two political parties
> within our community". Perhaps he has something like the Clinton Republicans
> and the Dole Democrats in mind, but it plays more like the two sides of a
> Lite Beer commercial: More Freedom! Fewer Bugs! Both are true, and both are
> important. Why can't you guys get it together?
> 
> Robert J Hale wrote:
> > 
> > Sign!  I hate to contiue this "SPAM" but I would like to agree and
> > disagree with Richard.  Free_____  is not the right word due to the dumb
> > conotations people have in the US or English speaking world.
> > 
> > I think Richard is right that it should reflect the Freedom of ___ but we
> > should choose a new word that is not sonomyous with FREE, ie no charge.
> > 
> > I think someone should get out the dictionary and see what other words
> > would bring about the proper understanding and we should reflect the true
> > unfettered choice we are bringing into the world.
> > 
> > My opion here in the north.
> > 
> > Robert in Alaska
> > 
> > PS.  Thanks for all you have done Richard.
> 
> -- 
> /*
>  * Tom Hull -- thull@kscable.com, thull@sco.com, thull@ocston.org
>  *             http://www.ocston.org/~thull
>  */
>