Re: Octave Forge: Package groups and properties defined, RFC.

[Juan Pablo Carbajal]

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Julien Bect
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Le 09/03/2017 à 11:46, Juan Pablo Carbajal a écrit :
>
> I strongly disagree, using "free" only keeps us stuck to the
> mis-interpretation. If you really want "free" to remind there (although I
> see no reason, even after RMR acknowledges the problem with the word "free")
> I woud go for Free/Libre software.
>
>
> Sure, it is useful to make this clear for newcomers, possibly unfamiliar
> with the concept of free software.
>
> One option is to use, as you suggest, a heavier expression systematically
> (such as "Free/Libre" instead of "Free").
>
> Another option would be to recall the distinction only once on each page
> that uses the concept.  Fore instance
>
> Like Octave itself, the packages provided at Octave Forge are Free Software.
>
> could be changed to
>
> Like Octave itself, the packages provided at Octave Forge are Free Software
> (free as in "free speech", not as in "free beer").
>
> (with a link still pointing to the FSF page explaining the concept in more
> detail).
>
> I don't know...
>
> @++
> Julien

This solution also looks good for me, even better than mine I would
say, but much more verbose.