Russell Nelson wrote:

Ramanraj K writes:

...

Would you consider pitching "free software" directly before the UN and other government circles?

Probably not. You're re-opening a battle we don't want to fight. Please accept that we'll call it open source, and you'll call it free software, and that we both mean the same thing.

Dear Mr. Russell Nelson,

You may market "free software" as "open source" to the business community, highlighting one of the basic inherent qualities of free software.

The issue is if you would consider pitching "free software" directly as "free software" before the law, to clearly distinguish free software from proprietary software. Please do leisurely read the postings referred. Please do not view this as a fight or battle, between the movements, for our real enemy is proprietary software. Though I understand that both are one and the same to us, from the point of view of the copyright law, the expression "free software" makes it plain that copying, sale, exhibition, installation, modification, redistribution, and trading are "free" with "free software" but these rights are "restricted to/by proprietor" in the case of proprietary software. The availability of source code, price, quality of software, development model etc. are qualites that cannot distinguish or differentiate our software from proprietary software. It would be in the best interests of our community to promote "free software" terminology in govt. circles to maintain clarity avoiding needless confusion. Hence this request.

Thanking you,

Regards, K. Ramanraj.