Russell Nelson wrote:

Ramanraj K writes:

...

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.

Microsoft gives away free 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.

Sorry, but "free software" is inherently confusing. Why do you think RMS always has to give his free speech/beer footnote? Why do you think proprietary software companies give away free software? Because they're our friends? I don't think so.

The solution to all of this nonsense is to establish a certification mark, which is what we've done.

I don't want to continue this discussion.

Time alone can bring home the truth.