On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:15:19PM -0400, Anil Kumar K V wrote:
I fully agree with the philosophy of freedom, which is propagated by FSF team. However imposition of the terms such as "GNU" and "Free Software" is not justifiable as these word contains only manufactured messages to convey. It is not advisable to urge others to use a term whose message is a manufactured one. Advocates of these terms may have some emotional satisfication in using these terms and need not be the case with all who campaigns for the freedom.
Oh. I had good values for OSS. Now I think I was having false impressions about your company.
Usually a movement or philosophy is called after its originator. However a product is referred by its shortest name for convenience. It is true that major portion of the Linux OS is developed by GNU. So it can be named as "GNU/Linux". Since there is no Linux OS other than GNU/Linux, the usage of "Linux" is justified by ease of use.
By calling the OS GNU/Linux, in a way we are giving credit to that Great Movement which created a Nice OS. Caling it just Linux you are simply neglecting the efforts of several other programmers who wrote various other programs.
There are spatial variations in the meaning of certain words. The word "Free" for us is actually more linked with 'free of cost' than to "freedom". However
You contradict your views by the below para. Thats why FSF people say Freedom(as in Free Speech) is more important. We never say Free software is Free Lunch.
How can a full time activist of a "free software" movement earn their livings. Or whether only part-time activist are expected to work for this movement, and find their earnings from a proprietary environment? Is it a good idea to promote local co-operative movements to overcome this crisis ? This has much relevance for software workers in a third world scenario where software development is considered as a source of employment.
Regards