Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS web site

[Andrew Savory]

On Thu, 1 May 2003, Alex Hudson wrote:

> I don't know. I understand the argument, but even if we did label them 1-4
> I wouldn't expect people to read/understand the point from that list. That's
> why there's a friendlier definition of Free Software on the front page.

This is a non-argument. If you don't expect people to understand the list,
don't put it on the site. If you do expect them to understand, or think
the list might be useful, then care about the way it is presented to them.

> Personally, I think the argument of consistency is pretty strong.

So do I. I'd like us to be consistent with the rest of the world in how we
write and speak our language, that is, we start counting at one.

> I would prefer, for example, that people reply to the DTi consultation
> on "OSS" as a default exploitation route for publically funded software
> than argue here about whether to start numbering schemes from 0 or 1 :)

This is my 'AFFS day' so I'll get to that, but I'd be embarrassed to refer
the DTi to the AFFS web site, if we can't even get a little thing like
counting done properly.

> Of course, feel free to prove me wrong about the damage thing. If it is
> a problem, I'm not so stuck in my ways that I wouldn't change. I just don't
> see the problem.

So, do we have to vote or something?


Andrew.

-- 
Andrew Savory                                Email: address@hidden
Managing Director                              Tel:  +44 (0)870 741 6658
Luminas Internet Applications                  Fax:  +44 (0)700 598 1135
This is not an official statement or order.    Web:    www.luminas.co.uk