On 2004-11-17, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --=-IiseFmkkjWkATH00yK2x > Content-Type: text/plain > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 21:57 +0000, Juha Siltala wrote: >> On 2004-11-17, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>=20 >> > In that context, terms like FLOSS or software-libre (or even FAIS(1) >> > and FAIB(2)) shoud be used instead. IMO, of course. >>=20 >> Social scientists are apparently standardizing on using the FLOSS term. I >> just see it as a compromise and an effort to not piss any partisans off.=20 >> It seems to conveniently blur the difference between the Free Software >> movement and Open Source, which is might be conceptually hazardous. > > I see it as a convenient amalgam when comparing OSS+FS vs. closed > source. Sorta like the main branch in a taxonomy of software freeness, > if you'd like.
Many people feel like that, and it currently seems to be the trend. The trick is to be careful when you actually need to stop talking about FLOSS and use precise terms. -- Juha Siltala http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/people/jsiltala/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
