home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4128 talk.philosophy.misc:3104 alt.usage.english:10200 alt.society.anarchy:975
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!uwm.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc9.harvard.edu!zeleny
- From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
- Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
- Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
- Message-ID: <1993Jan2.122330.18937@husc3.harvard.edu>
- Date: 2 Jan 93 17:23:28 GMT
- Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan2.122330.18937
- References: <9212300616.AA25845@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <1993Jan2.043903.18936@husc3.harvard.edu> <1i3ooqINNlt8@ftp.UU.NET>
- Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal
- Lines: 56
- Nntp-Posting-Host: husc9.harvard.edu
-
- In article <1i3ooqINNlt8@ftp.UU.NET>
- sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
-
- >In article <1993Jan2.043903.18936@husc3.harvard.edu>
- >zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
-
- >>Your mission would be unexceptionable, and indeed laudable, were it
- >>not ineluctably involved with an attempt at a reprehensible semantic
- >>reform. As it stands, your true mission is to self-servingly gloss
- >>the "Freedom is slavery" slogan of the Ministry of Truth.
-
- >The second ammendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right for the
- >public to keep and bear arms (well, it *tries* to). This is a freedom to
- >bear guns. This does not mean that the guns are free.
- >
- >Someone leaving some form of incarceration might be heard to proclaim, "I am
- >free!" There was a long-time movement to "Free Nelson Mandella!" Does that
- >mean that the subject of each of those statements is available without
- >price? Or even without restriction? No. Saying, "I am free!" means that
- >you are not captive, and that you are not prevented from some action.
- >Similarly with the software produced and owned by the FSF: it is free, but
- >not free. <<Liberte'>> au lieu de <<gratuit>>.
- >
- >I personally don't see what the problem is. "Free" *does* have more than
- >one definition in English.
-
- I personally do not see the relevance of your analogies with freedom
- to carry guns, or freedom from incarceration. However, I clearly see
- that you misunderstand my point. There exists a clear meaning
- conventionally associated with the term "free software", as distinct
- from public domain software. In order to appreciate the difference,
- you may refer to TeX, which is made available gratis, and without a
- reciprocal obligation. When I want a new release of TeX, I have the
- option of ftp'ing it from an Internet node, paying the AMS or somebody
- else for the distribution medium, or asking someone to make me a copy.
- If I were to hatch a scheme to port TeX to Sinclair Z80, and copyright
- the result, the only force capable of stopping me from doing so, would
- be my conscience. By contrast, the products of the Free Software
- Foundation place their users under a reciprocal obligation to their
- maker. If the company's name were "Free to Redistribute or Change, As
- Long As the Changes Are Shared With Us Software Foundation", there
- would be nothing for me or anyone else to complain about. But in the
- present situation, the only way to justify the current short name, is
- to resort to a linguistic trick.
-
- Semantic drift happens all the time, and it would be foolish for
- anyone to attempt to countervail its natural forces. However, I see
- nothing wrong with objecting to a certain form of semantic reform,
- which is being promulgated on hypocritically self-serving grounds of
- protecting "my" rights. I happen to have a vested interest in the
- current meaning of the adjective "free"; if you happen to feel
- otherwise, that is entirely your prerogative, and your problem.
-
- cordially,
- mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
- "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
-