On 5/19/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Rod Heyd</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:rsheyd@gmail.com">rsheyd@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><br><br><div></div><div><span class="q"><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/18/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Mike Schwartz</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:mike.l.schwartz@gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
mike.l.schwartz@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><div><div><span><div><br>
</div></span></div><div>Umm, one small correction:</div>&gt; Stallman adapted [...]
and called it open source. <br>
<br>
Nope.&nbsp; What Stallman calls it, is  &quot;Free Software&quot;.<br>
Not only is &quot;open source&quot; not == &quot;Free Software&quot;,<br>
but Stallman considers the difference to be important.<br>
He talks about it on some of the gnu project web pages -- see<br>
&nbsp; <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/</a><br>
In fact, his answer (more detailed than just 'no') to the question <br>
&quot;<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">Is `Open
       Source' Synonymous With `Free Software'?</a>&quot;.&nbsp; <br>
is given in an essay entitled <br>
&lt;&lt; <font size="2">Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source''</font> &gt;&gt;<br>
at<br>
&nbsp; <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html</a></div></blockquote>

</span></div><div><div><br>Hello Mike,<br><br>You are correct.&nbsp; I
got a little sloppy with my terminology, I'm sure Stallman would rip me
a new one over that!&nbsp; However, my point still stands.&nbsp;
Stallman's motivating philosophy for free software is based on the
successes of the scientific process, not on a dubious utopian political
philosophy.
<br><br>Cheers,<br><br>Rod</div></div></div></blockquote></div><br>Yes, I agree.<br>
...and even though <span class="q"> Stallman considers the difference to be important,<br>
(</span><span class="q">&quot;open source&quot; not == &quot;Free Software&quot;</span><span class="q">)<br>
any worrying about terminology like that,&nbsp; <br>
is really kind of a picayune nit-pick, <br>
compared to the big picture, --<br>
which was your point.<br>
&nbsp;<br>
 </span>PS:&nbsp; I also agree that it is well and good, that<br>
Stallman has kept some of his personal opinions &quot;off&quot;<br>
of the gnu (and FSF) web sites, to some extent.<br>
One can get some idea of those personal opinions <br>
by looking at his personal web pages.<br clear="all">Not that I want to get in to whether I disagree or not,<br>
with him; <br>
even if my opinions == his,<br>
we still have such a wide variety of nerds and other <br>
folks, in the world of gnu (and FSF) etc.;<br>
wide enough that obviously there could be some<br>
folks, who might debate/argue/flame... spend<br>
(waste?) time on various disagreements,<br>
while there is much practical work to be done.<br>
-- so much work in fact,<br>
that it has to be prioritized, and &quot;triaged&quot;, <br>
and the less important stuff, <br>
may get less (/or, &quot;no&quot;) time devoted to it, <br>
for now at least...<br>-- <br>Mike Schwartz&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<br>Glendale&nbsp;&nbsp;AZ <br><a href="mailto:schwartz@acm.org">schwartz@acm.org</a><br><a href="mailto:Mike.L.Schwartz@gmail.com">Mike.L.Schwartz@gmail.com</a>