[Open-graphics] Discussions with Richard Stallman

[luc]

Le lundi 08 janvier 2007 à 14:29 -0500, Timothy Miller a écrit :
> Did you mean to make this a private email?  If not, please forward what I write.
I apologize, I've missed the "Reply-to-all" button
> 
> On 1/8/07, luc <lucmars2 at orange.fr> wrote:
> > Yes it would be, in my view, but not especially between "open" and
> > "free". We are closed to a messy problem of communication.
> 
> Yeah, and I don't want to discuss it TOO much.  It's a can of worms.
> 
> See my other post regarding my motivation.
> 
> > Tim, what is the RMS's motivation ?
> > Is it to take some distance with the open-source branch since the Novell
> > agreement with Microsoft ?
> 
> If that's his intention, he hasn't said anything to me about it.  When
> I read the wikipedia article about RMS, I get the impression that he
> is just very pedantic about his use of language.  He's very much a
> believer in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
humm...anyway.
> 
> >
> > I think that "open" in "open-graphic" or "open-hardware" can't have the
> > same meaning as in "open-source", simply because the involvements are
> > differents.
> 
> I think that too.
> 
> > Unfortunately, communication don't rely on any rational and one has to
> > take in account the usage. As someone post here, "open-standard" seems
> > to be a good name, but would be understood as a RAND license.
> 
> And I agree that "RAND" is kinda crappy.
> 
> > One cannot use the word "free" because it's ambiguity, nor the word
> > "open" just because that doesn't sound ethical, or to much pratical.
> > That looks like a double bind. Using an unambiguous word like "libre"
> > won't change anything. (especially for the French people whom the
> > majority just retains the costless)
> 
> This is a hard problem.  NP-hard, even.  :)
> 
> > So, may be one should state that it is not "open" as in "open-source",
> > it's "open" as in "Open Document Format" (as far as this format don't
> > become a RAND or cluttered with patents)
> 
> Good example.
> 
> > Mainly, something which is not directly related to "free", nor to the
> > "open-source", and not already knew by the majority.
> >
> > Does RMS have some reluctance about ODF ?
> 
> Good question.
> 
> >
> > PS: in Deutsch "Frei" is use as "free" in "freebeer"
> 
> Ja.  Ich verstehe.
>