🚀 go-pugleaf

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."