Daniel Mayer (maveric149) wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
>Mav wrote:
>>I'm advocating the full use of the word
free (no cost and copyleft).
>Then you have a strange meaning of 'free'.
It is just the foundation upon which the free software
movement is based.
This is really not true!
The Free Sotware Foundation takes a specific principled stance
that one CAN charge money for free software code and free documentation
(see <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html>).
It is also the meaning we have been operating on since
day one.
I wasn't here on day one, but I'm pretty sure that this isn't true either.
For as long I've been here (now 2 years), there's always been talk in the air
about making distributions on compact discs or cheap newsprint
and selling them at prices that are quite low -- but still large enough
to recoup the investment in the materials and the printing.
I am confident that Jimbo -- a true believer in capitalism --
is looking forward to the day when distributing Wikimedia content
starts making some far-sighted printing companies a good profit.
We in fact make our
content more free by not allowing invariant sections.
Yep! And if you believe Nathanael Nerode
(see <http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html>),
it is only through doing this that we become free at all. ^_^
If we are serious about leading a revolution in how
content is distributed and
controlled, then we must continue using the full sense of the word 'free'
(gratis and libre). Negative feedback loops will not get us there.
I don't see how the «gratis» bit prevents irreversible forks.
On the other hand, you need a «copyleft» bit to prevent these,
and that is simply not included in the accepted meaning of the term "free".
-- Toby