🚀 go-pugleaf

[This is getting off-topic for comp.text.tex. F'up set]

Christopher B. Browne <cbbrowne@news.brownes.org> wrote:
>I think we need to thrash the guys that came up with the wonderfully
>spin-doctorable "open source," and call it "freely redistributable
>software"...

Natural language is a difficult medium for transferring precise meaning. A
phrase like "freely redistributable software" does not cover use of the
software, does not imply "freely modifiable", nor "non-contaminitive
license".

I don't think you're doing BP, SPI and ESR and OSI justice here. They tried
to introduce a reasonably distinct term, with a fairly clear set of criteria
which define it, for "free software" that didn't suffer from the overload of
meanings of "free". Regrettably, "open" also has different meanings, and the
term "Open Source" is getting diluted due to spin doctors from outside the
free software community.
Still, "Open Source" has focussed people's attention on the free software
community, which is a good thing.

Now I'd be very happy if people were all to use the term "DFSG-free", but I
don't expect that to happen.

Ray
-- 
UNFAIR  Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we tried 
to cheat them out of and didn't manage. See also DISHONESTY, SNEAKY, 
UNDERHAND and JUST LUCKY I GUESS.     
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan