Discuss mailing list

["Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com>]

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. 
Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, 
study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of 
liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as 
in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre 
software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to 
show we do not mean the software is gratis. 

“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial”. A free program must be 
available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial 
distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; 
such free commercial software is very important. You may have paid money to 
get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. 
But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to 
copy and change the software, even to sell copies. 

https://opensource.org/osd

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the 
software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing 
programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a 
royalty or other fee for such sale.

--

-Dan Q


On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 19:31:45 -0400 (EDT), "Daniel Quintiliani" 
<danq AT runbox.com> wrote:

> You forgot Definition 10.
> 
> This is an easier explanation.
> 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free
> 
> Definition 1 (and most of the other definitions) refer to "libre"
> Let's focus on Definition 4a.
> 
> "4a :  having no trade restrictions"
> 
> Definition 10 refers to "gratis"
> 
> "10. not costing or charging anything"
> 
> Definition 4a, literally, would imply public domain material. However, 
> according to the FSF, OSI, and all the other "libre" organizations, "libre" 
> has only a few trade restrictions such as requiring attribution, disclaimer 
> of warranty or, in the case of copyleft, requiring future derivatives of 
> the material to also be "libre"
> 
> But they all specifically reject requiring a Definition 10 for "libre".
> 
> If Definition 10 is required for the .free TLD, that is a trade 
> restriction. Thus violating Definition 4a, thus not being "libre"
> 
> Therefore, .libre is not a good choice and is misleading.
> 
> --
> 
> -Dan Q
> 
> 
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 15:28:56 -0700, <vv AT cgs.pw> wrote:
> 
> > Daniel,
> > 
> > Perhaps not "everyone", but rather just me. :)
> > I apologise for getting hold of the wrong end
> > of the stick there.
> > 
> > I was really stuck on the "libre" and "free"
> > thing - neither of which are compatible with
> > the idea of demanding non-commercial use.
> > How that could happen in the first place is
> > pretty crazy to my way of thinking. I honestly
> > don't see how one could confuse "free" with
> > the idea of excluding certain people or usages.
> > That is where I got confused.
> > 
> > So, I now agree with you. If the charter is to
> > remain the same, then another name is very
> > important. Your idea of .noncom is very good.
> > However, using two m's sounds like "communication"
> > to me, rather than "commercial". That's just
> > my opinion, for whatever that's worth. :)
> > 
> > For those whose first language is not English,
> > Spanish, or French, here is why neither libre nor
> > free is appropriate for that charter:
> > 
> > LIBRE: From French and Spanish libre (“free,
> >  having liberty, at liberty”).
> >  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libre
> > FREE: having the legal and political rights of
> >  a citizen; enjoying political independence or
> >  freedom from outside domination; etc.
> >  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free
> > 
> > Regards,
> >         Ole
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 15:41:59 -0400 (EDT)
> > "Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Everyone keeps misunderstanding me. I want to change the
> > > TLD, not the charter.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 
> > > -Dan Q
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 16:17:38 +0200, Amunak
> > > <amunak AT amunak.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I like this choice also because it's very unlikely that
> > > > someone might register it with ICANN, as it's not
> > > > really a word or anything.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Dne 10.06.2017 v 7:03 kevin napsal(a):  
> > > > > .faif
> > > > >
> > > > > <free as in freedom>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 22:31 -0400, Daniel Quintiliani
> > > > > wrote:  
> > > > >> Originally it was about the choice of the TLD .libre
> > > > >> as a replacement for a noncommercial-only .free,
> > > > >> when something like .noncom or .noncomm would be
> > > > >> better suited since "libre" implies both commercial
> > > > >> and noncommercial use.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -Dan Q
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 19:28:24 -0700, <vv AT cgs.pw> wrote:
> > > > >>  
> > > > >>> I think the discussion was not about the word,
> > > > >>> nor choice thereof, but about the appropriateness
> > > > >>> of the charter.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ~ Ole
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 22:20:21 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > >>> "Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>  
> > > > >>>> "libre vs gratis" is used in the free software
> > > > >>>> movement, as the word "free" in English means both
> > > > >>>> "free as in freedom" (libre) and "free of
> > > > >>>> charge" (gratis).
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> --
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> -Dan Q
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 19:14:14 -0700, rhargrave
> > > > >>>> <roman AT hargrave.info> wrote:
> > > > >>>>  
> > > > >>>>> I'm not up to speed on the .free replacement
> > > > >>>>> situation, but has anyone suggested the charter
> > > > >>>>> of an entirely novel domain deriving its name
> > > > >>>>> from the equivalent to 'free' in another language
> > > > >>>>> (like .libre)? Perhaps choosing a word from a
> > > > >>>>> conlang like Esperanto would also eliminate
> > > > >>>>> disagreements based on locality. The charter
> > > > >>>>> could be basically identical to .free.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> ---- On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 19:03:21 -0700 vv AT cgs.pw
> > > > >>>>> wrote ----
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I think your points are good, and look forward to
> > > > >>>>> some discussion about that. Commercial usage can
> > > > >>>>> sometimes be a problem in some environments, but
> > > > >>>>> I honestly don't think that's going to happen
> > > > >>>>> here. In fact I think we should be so lucky as to
> > > > >>>>> have commercial interest in our world. It might
> > > > >>>>> be good for us.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> That said, the basic ideas of liberty and freedom
> > > > >>>>> are not compatible with such harsh censorship as
> > > > >>>>> espoused by the .libre charter. In fact I think it
> > > > >>>>> is very wrong and certainly deceptive - I hope not
> > > > >>>>> deliberately so.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>> Ole Juul
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 20:18:17 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > >>>>> "Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>      
> > > > >>>>>> Hi,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I really think we need to reopen the choice of
> > > > >>>>>> the .libre domain to replace .free.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> The reason being that the charter for .libre
> > > > >>>>>> forbids commercial use while every use of .libre
> > > > >>>>>> (FLOSS) means "free as in freedom" including the
> > > > >>>>>> freedom for commercial use. Therefore .libre is
> > > > >>>>>> misleading. .libre is closer to .oss than it is
> > > > >>>>>> to .free.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> During the vote I suggested merging into .null,
> > > > >>>>>> but it was during the voting thread, there was no
> > > > >>>>>> discussion, and my vote to merge into .null
> > > > >>>>>> wound up being the only vote to do so.
> > > > >>>>>> Also, .null is intended for individuals, not
> > > > >>>>>> organizations, so that was a bad idea anyway.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> While it's still soon enough, I think we should
> > > > >>>>>> cancel the .libre domains and switch them to
> > > > >>>>>> something like:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> .noncom
> > > > >>>>>> .noncomm
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> or the like.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I propose .noncom
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Does anyone agree with me on .libre being a bad
> > > > >>>>>> idea, and that we should rename it ASAP?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> -- 
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> -Dan Q  
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> --------
> > > > >>>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> > > > >>>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing
> > > > >>>>> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> --------
> > > > >>>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> > > > >>>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing
> > > > >>>>> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org  
> > > > >>>>  
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --------
> > > > >>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> > > > >>> You may unsubscribe by emailing
> > > > >>> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org  
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --------
> > > > >> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> > > > >> You may unsubscribe by emailing
> > > > >> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org  
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --------
> > > > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> > > > > You may unsubscribe by emailing
> > > > > discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org  
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --------
> > > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> > > > You may unsubscribe by emailing
> > > > discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org  
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > --------
> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> > You may unsubscribe by emailing 
> > discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org