Sandip Bhattacharya wrote:
Ramanraj K wrote:
"Free Software" is without ambiguity or overapplicability:
Without ambiguity? You have taken a very common english word and added special meaning to it, and you call it unambiguous?
Free Software is based on copyright law. By default, the author of a computer program has absolute copyright over his work. An author who releases his computer program under the GPL or like free license essentially releases his work as free software under the terms of the GPL. Such authors openly declare:
<quote> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. </quote>
The animadversion that free software is not free is associated with these lines in the terms of the GPL:
<quote> You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. </quote>
Obviously, these terms have nothing to do with royalty or license fees which is the rule in the case of non-free software, and essentially the software released under the GPL is given away free by the author.
If finding fault with the generous dispositions made by authors under the terms of the GPL is a pastime or a big joke for a few, we need to be least concerned about it.
AFAIK, there are no legal ambiguities in the GPL.
Why then do you always have to qualify it in front of new people by saying "free as in freedom, and not as in beer!"?
RMS has been trying to make the legal distinction more clear with those words, which I am afraid, may not be well from here. Probably the analogy helps people familiar with the "free beer" culture to understand the legal implication better, which does not in any way alter the terms of the GPL.
The whole english culture has attached the meaning to the word "free" as to mean, "available without strings". And regardless of how noble the intentions of the "strings" in Free Software, it still is inconsistent with the common usage of the word "free".
We don't go by what "English culture" has in store, but what the terms in the GPL actually express.
In the real world "Free" != "freedom" .. in the semantic sense.
- We Indians fought for *freedom*
- We got CDs for free.
Copyright deals with the computer program per se, and many confuse this with the various mediums through which computer programs could be transmitted. The computer program per se is free without royalty or license fees, and the GPL only clarifies that fees may be charged for providing warranty or for the act of copying that has nothing to do with the copyright for the computer program.
For goodness sake dont say that the term "Free Software" is unambiguous. It is anything but that. Call it "Freedom Software" or "People's Software" or "Software for the masses". Else you will spend all your life trying to convince people that you want to change the meaning of the word in Oxford dictionary.
To a legally trained mind, "Free Software" in the light of the GPL and Copyright Law should make sense without much difficulty.
To finish this thread, please know that it is optional under copyright law to disclose the source code for computer programs. Please understand that the source code for non-free computer programs could be published like books are published, and yet be protected by copyright. In short, even non-free programs could be open source, without being free in any sense of the word. That is why "Open Source" is an hopeless expression, in the light of copyright law, but "Free Software" could be used aptly without ambiguity or overapplicability.