There is nothing "free" about "free-software". It's a very strong form
of copyright, designed to be iron-clad. In particular, it insists that
a license be maintained with the work. This is OK for stuff that clumps
together, like a lot of software. But it's very bad for content, which
wants to crumble into smaller pieces, excerpts, and ultimately be
tracked only at the editor's discretion. The "free-software" license I
think reduces (or eliminates) the scope of "fair use". For content, I
believe in "public domain except as noted" - it should be public domain,
as much as possible, and where not then the copyright owner should have
to be responsible to maintain such notices. (Just like "no trespassing"
signs.) Briefly, Andrius, http://www.ms.lt (01)
Shawn Murphy wrote: (02)
> On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 09:34, Tom Munnecke wrote:
>
>>He [Richard Stallman] cringes at
>>the word "open" in the context of software, however, it is very closely
>>related to the Open Source Software movement (GNU- Linux).
>>
>
> His concern is that the term "open source" was specifically coined as a
> business-friendly alternative to the term "free software" by Christine
> Peterson, Eric Raymond and others. Business friendly, because the
> software companies who make money from the sale of non-free software
> feel squeemish in the presence of the word "free". Stallman believes
> that software should be free and that free software makes a better
> world. I doubt he has a problem with the word 'open', it is when it is
> used as a weaselly substitute for 'free' that his ire is raised.
>
> (03)
--
This message is archived at: (04)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=3EA9A50C.7050106@ms.lt (05)
|