Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM ( Jim Adcock) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: O'pain Software Foundation: (3) relationship to GNU & openness Message-ID: <5910001@hplsla.HP.COM> Date: 26 May 88 19:06:49 GMT References: <4630@hoptoad.uucp> Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA Lines: 58 | I see too much resemblance between "Open Software Foundation" | and "Free Software Foundation". Well, as long as we're complaining about naming conventions, how about complaining about "Free Software Foundation" ??? Free means Free. Free does not mean you have an obligation to send someone bucks. Free does not mean that you are forced to buy into someone else's political/economic philosophies before one is allowed to use his/her software. Free does not mean you're going to threaten to sue the ass off anyone who says or does something you don't like. Free does not mean you take someone else's software that was given to you without restriction, and add your own licensing restrictions. Free means free. Free means being able to speak your honest mind without having to consult with a lawyer first. Free means being able to speak your honest mind without having the one you're talking about sending his/her lawyer to come talk to you. Free means being able to charge a buck for one's efforts, if one feels the marketplace is willing to pay you a buck for those efforts. Free means being able to put one ideas in the public domain, if that is what one chooses to do, for the betterment of all man-kind, without restriction, to do with as they might. Free means free. I for one, am sick and tired of having to run to a lawyer everytime I want to write some software, or to speak my mind, or having someone else sick his/her lawyers on me when I do speak my mind. I don't see where "Free Software Foundation's" software is any more "free" than the "Open Software Foundation's" software is "open" "A rose by any other name ..... " Mine own opinion only.