Re: Open source - Free software

[Jay Belanger]

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
...
>>>>Really?  The meaning of the adjective doesn't depend on the noun it
>>>>modifies? 
>
>>> Not necessarily.
>
>>Not necessarily, but it can.
>
> Which doesn't support the argument that unfettered is the only way to
> apply it to software.

It doesn't support a lot of things.  If you were paying attention, I
was merely pointing out that your casual dismissal of that application
is wrong.

>>> Forcing the meaning of free, in a particular usage, to mean unfettered
>>> - when it's just as logical to use it to mean without charge - is
>>> controlling, not communicating.
>
>>Not at all; the word "free" means "unfettered" in many circumstances
>>when it could logically mean without charge.
>
> Which doesn't support the argument that unfettered is the only way to
> apply it to software.  

Again, I was merely pointing out that your casual dismissal of the
current meaning of the phrase "free software" is wrong.
I'm sorry that you don't like the meaning of the phrase, but to insist
that the meaning you decide to give it is the meaning everyone must
agree to is controlling, not communication.

> Supporting the opposing view isn't an argument that supports your view.

I should say not.  I'm guessing that you mean "An argument againt the
opposing view isn't an argument that supports your view", but given
the way you use the language, I can't be sure.  In this case, an
argument against the opposing view was merely an argument to point out
the opposing view was wrong.

Jay