Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!manis From: manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: The meaning of FREE in FSF Message-ID: <6067@ubc-cs.UUCP> Date: 21 Dec 89 19:44:49 GMT References: <696@eedsp.eedsp.gatech.edu> Sender: news@cs.ubc.ca Reply-To: manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) Organization: The Invisible City of Kitezh Lines: 28 In article <696@eedsp.eedsp.gatech.edu> baud@eedsp.eedsp.gatech.edu (Kurt Baudendistel) writes: >Maybe FSF should change its name to the Unencumbered Software Foundation >(coined by manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis)) so that there is no more >confusion on this topic? I must respectfully decline the honour. I didn't coin this phrase (though I like it a lot: it reminds me that, according to Jonathan Swift, the Laputans were engaged in a product to extract light from cucumbers. Next to that, the zaniest software licence is common sense). However, there are two views of unencumbrance [sic]: either you can do with the code what you want, or you cannot prevent a customer from doing with the code what s/he wants. Those who decry the GPL subscribe to the first view, while FSF argues for the second. There have certainly been times when I refused to use an FSF product for something because of the licence agreement, but there have been many more times when I have used their products in the way that the GPL specifies. Does being able to see both sides of the issue make me a wimp? -- \ Vincent Manis "There is no law that vulgarity and \ Department of Computer Science literary excellence cannot coexist." /\ University of British Columbia -- A. Trevor Hodge / \ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 (604) 228-2394