Re: [edu-eu] FWB: Foss with benefits

[Andrew 'Leny' Lindley]

On Friday 06 Feb 2015 02:07:11 Charles Cossé wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> In light of points made in this conversation I spent some time reviewing
> FSF literature and definitions.   At the end of "Why Open Source misses the
> point of Free Software"
> <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html> there is
> the following:
> 
> Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work on an
> 
> > activity that calls itself “open.” Even if the activity is good in and of
> > itself, each contribution you make does a little harm on the side.  (src
> > <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html>)
> 
> At the risk of cluttering simple sentences I have modified my text
> throughout to read "free/open-source (GPL'd) education software", so as not
> to preclude anyone from participating or endorsing the project.

Thanks, but because of the confusion between the distinct meanings of 'free' 
the fully inclusive term Free Software prefers is (according to RMS) Free 
Libre Open Source Software. 

> I also unpublished Asymptopia Software's Facebook page, for my own reasons,
> namely that it's not helping anything, but noting that it's also consistent
> with RMS's philosophy.
> 
> Here is an issue I have with much of what I read today:  The notions of
> fundamental "rights and wrongs" are used often.  Personally, I don't
> believe that there are such things at all ... in the universe.   That has
> nothing to do with software, or religion, or anything except my
> cosmology.   So FSF philosophy alienates me long before considerations of
> software ... whether I agree with the goals or not.  That argument is
> loaded with implicit assumptions that have nothing to do with software.

To draw on Michael J Sandel's 'Justice,' which I recommend to you.  If you 
believe there is no such thing as rights and wrongs (as human truths) do you 
propose to cook and eat your own children at some point?

> 
> "Education <https://www.gnu.org/education/>" is at the core of FSF's
> mission, but it is really just *Computer Science* Education that FSF is
> referring to, as far as I can tell.
> 
> Free Software supports education, proprietary software forbids education.  (
> > src <https://www.gnu.org/education/>)
> 
> If, for example, I were to put a new version of my FSF-listed game
> TuxMathScrabble online without GPL-ing it, that certainly isn't
> "forbidding" any education that it was ever intended for, i.e. kids to
> *use*. In fact, it's JavaScript, so Computer Science students can even
> still read the code and learn.

There would be legal impediments to them using what they learned from it.  
Look into cleanroom reverse engineering if you want the gory details of the 
relevant laws.   

Further we are discussing free in the sense of liberty / rights not lack of 
encumbrance.  You have made a common mistaken conflation of the two.

Leny