listhelper-moderate
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

gnu-emacs-sources post from address@hidden requires approval


From: gnu-emacs-sources-owner
Subject: gnu-emacs-sources post from address@hidden requires approval
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:40:20 -0400

As list administrator, your authorization is requested for the
following mailing list posting:

    List:    address@hidden
    From:    address@hidden
    Subject: [OT] free software vs open source was: Re: codesearch.el 1.0 --- 
Search for code via Google Code Search
    Reason:  Post by non-member to a members-only list

At your convenience, visit:

    http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/admindb/gnu-emacs-sources
        
to approve or deny the request.
--- Begin Message --- Subject: [OT] free software vs open source was: Re: codesearch.el 1.0 --- Search for code via Google Code Search Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:02:11 +1000 User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux)
Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>     ;;; codesearch.el --- allowing users to search for open-source code on
>
> Would you please call it "free software code"?
> Using the term "open source" downplays the ethical issues
> which are the most important issues.
>
> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
> for more explanation.
>

My apologies to all for being off topic in this sources group, but I think this
is an important issue. 

While I agree with the sentiments, I'm not sure 'free software' would be
correct in this case. Maybe you can clarify. From what I've read I'd expect
that free software is a subset of open source software (i.e. not all open
source software is free in the sense that it protects our freedoms). Therefore,
referring to codesearch.el as a utility to search for free software would only
be correct if all the software titles it returned were ones with licenses such
as the GPL, which protect our freedoms and exclude packages with other licenses
which don't have those protections. 

There maybe a valid argument in saying that we should always use the term free
software to reinforce the important issues rather than 'open source'. However,
I wonder if doing this generally may have a negative effect in that if it is
applied to software which doesn't protect our freedoms people will associate
the free with free beer rather than freedom or worse yet, think that all open
source software protects our rights. Personally, I think we should only use
the term 'free software' to refer to a package when the license does actually
protect our freedom and use the term 'open source' if the license doesn't have
that level of protection. .

Although I've not had a chance to look at the package (which I think will be
quite useful), a nice addition would be if the search results were gruped into
'free' and 'non-free' (with free being presented first). How easily this could
be done I don't know.

Congrats BTW on GPLv3. 

Tim

-- 
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: confirm 09323055cfba82466cb06b7baf960296f638931a
If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact,
Mailman will discard the held message.  Do this if the message is
spam.  If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header
with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting
to the list.  The Approved: header can also appear in the first line
of the body of the reply.

--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]