Arkin writes:
 > * GPL protects against commercial interest -- admit it or not, a fair
 > share of the movement today is anti to some large corporation we all
 > know.

We need to use language carefully on this list, because our
(corporate) interests lie precisely where the usual terms are
ambiguous.  I'd like to *ban* the word "free", prefering instead to
use "libre" for freedom and "gratis" for zero-cost.  I'd also like
people to be particularly careful about the distinction between
commercial and proprietary.  There is nothing inherent in libre code
that makes it commercial or not.  Of course, by definition it's never
proprietary.  Gratis code, on the other hand, can be commercial (a
loss leader, or tied to the sale of hardware) or proprietary (not
freely copyable -- for example, Internet Explorer must be downloaded
only from a Microsoft site.  It is not freely copyable even though
it's free).

 > Open Development seem to be the key word. If you do not get the mind
 > share of people, then your code may be fully OpenSource(tm) compliant,
 > but going nowhere. This is a movement about people, about the ability of
 > people to communicate, and the removal of boundaries so people can
 > freely associate regardles of limitations.

Yup.  Good point.

-- 
-russ nelson <rn-sig@crynwr.com>  http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Good parenting creates
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | an adult, not a perfect
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | child.