Subject: fsb-free is neither bsd-free nor gpl-free
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 15:05:28 +0900 (JST)

>>>>> "rn" == Russell Nelson <> writes:

    rn> Bruce Perens writes:
    >> From: Russell Nelson <> > Here, "free" means
    >> that you give up licenses as a source of revenue.
    >> Entirely? Isn't that limiting your options, too?

    rn> No, it just limits the activities you can call "free".  For
    rn> myself, I am satisfied if the majority of my business
    rn> activities are free.

    rn> Then again, the problem with the term is that it leaves
    rn> someone like L. Peter Deutsch with no term for Aladdin.  And
    rn> yet Aladdin gives up a substantial portion of it's potential
    rn> income through it's GPL'ed and AFPL'ed releases.

So?  I approve of what Peter is doing, but he's a monopolist.  You
can't compete with him on distribution without his permission.  You
have no access to revenues to fund development of a fork without his
permission (except maybe as an academic researcher accepting an NSF
grant).  That doesn't come close to satisfying your definition of
free, even leaving out those aspects of free the FSF cares about.

Call him an ethical monopolist, if you like, but it doesn't really
capture the interesting aspects of his business model.

I think it's a shame the OSI restricted "open source software" to mean
free software.  "Public source" doesn't do it.  "Source available" is
even weaker.  "Free for non-commercial purposes"?  Bletch.

Down with terminological monopoly!  Free the terminology!

University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
What are those two straight lines for?  "Free software rules."