Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!shadooby!umich!itivax!scs
From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: The meaning of FREE in FSF
Message-ID: <4692@itivax.iti.org>
Date: 22 Dec 89 14:31:03 GMT
References: <696@eedsp.eedsp.gatech.edu> <6067@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Sender: news@itivax.iti.org
Lines: 30

manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes:

>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). 

Gee thanks!  I think *I* coined it, in a followup to Vincent Manis'
posting in this thread.  First time I've ever been compared to Swift.

>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.

I disagree with the latter simple meaning of the word 'encumberance' --
the FSF is placing restrictions on the software so that I cannot do
"what I want" with it.  As such, it is encumbered.  One may argue endlessly
(particularly in this group :-) as to the rightness or wrongness of the
encumberance, but it remains an encumberance.

>Does being able to see both sides of the issue make me a wimp?

"Human, all too human."  Robert Heinlein.