Re: [Fsfe-uk] Why FS is a Good Thing: Draft 3

[Vanessa Conchodon]

Hi!

Good job :o) But I have few remarks ;o)

Sorry if my remarks have already been discussed on the ML
(I have still lots of FSFE-UK mails to read...).

Ramin Nakisa wrote:
(...)
>   The Free Software Foundation,
>   founded by Richard Stallman in 1984, exists to write and support
>   Free Software through it's spearhead project known as GNU (GNU's Not
>   Unix) which is a collection of programs for a Unix-like operating
>   system, and a software licence known as the GNU General Public
>   Licence (GPL).

  I would have said "GNU whose goal is to develop a complete Unix-
  like operating system by writing a collection of programs" or
  something like that.
  By writing "for a Unix-like operating system" at the end of the
  line, people can think about "unix-like OS"=linux.
  But linux is not a GNU project. The GNU kernel is hurd.
  Most of people talk about linux or GNU/linux as they know
  applications are GNU. But few knows that writing a kernel
  is also a GNU project.

  Besides "a free software licence"

  Btw I would have added something like "The Free Software
  Foundation was the first association related to Free
  Software. Founded by Richard Stallman in 1984, it..."
  as FSF is not the only association who defends free software
  and who wants to write Free Software.
  But they were the first to give so much importance to it
  and the GNU project and the GPL gave ideas to lots of people
  and most of all, gave a definition of Free Software.

>   Free Software such as that distributed under the GPL ensures four
>   freedoms: (i) the freedom to run the program, for any purpose, (ii)
>   the freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
>   needs, (iii) the freedom to redistribute copies so you can help
>   others and (iv) the freedom to improve the program, and release your
>   improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

  I suggest a list (itemize) instead of writing all in the same
  sentence. More visual. These 4 freedoms are VERY important
  to understand.

> The Association for Free Software supports the use of Free Software
> because:

  Adding "(AFFS)" could be nice.

> \item Most software is written in-house and never sold, and in this
>   case software patents are a hindrance.  Free Software is not a
>   commodity, it is more like infrastructure -- freely available to all
>   businesses and an enabler of progress and innovation.

  I'm not sure to well understand what you mean and that talking
  about patents here is a good idea.

> \item Support for Free Software is often much better than support for
>   proprietary software.  Mailing lists, bulletin boards and newsgroups
>   exist where users post questions and receive prompt and helpful
>   replies.  People are encouraged to report bugs and these are quickly
>   fixed.

 What is exactly "bulletin boards"?
> \item [GNU] which provides the bulk of basic utility programs.

 Is GIMP basic?

> \item [KDE, Gnome, GNUstep, and XFCE] a selection of desktop
>   environments with attractive and easy to use graphical interfaces.
> \item [OpenOffice] a word-processing, email, spreadsheet and
>   presentation package that is compatible and visually similar to
>   Microsoft Office.

  Similar in functionalities too (not only visually).

   Several things are missing on my opinion:
   - free software is a gage of inovation as people could look
     at the code, learn to do things, improve them and even
     create something new according to the experience of others
     FS projects.
   - companies can also modify a programm in a commercial context.
     They can modify a FS to correspond to their needs without
     asking the author "can I do this?", according to the
     licence.
     That is not possible with lots of proprietary software:
     they have to contact the company to ask for a new
     feature that could take a long time to obtain.
   - (Although I think free software is the *right* thing)
     Even if a company wants to keep their main product
     as proprietary, they could turn parts of their products
     as free software and still use them (under LPGL for
     example). The company will receive help for the free
     software parts of their products.
   - I don't have seen anywhere that Free Software was
     not limited to linux. I mean that we can find lots and
     lots of free software on Windows system or mac or
     other and that is really an advantage for a company
     to use it as they won't be limited by one specific OS
     (a secretary can use the same openoffice as an engineer
      but one is on Windows, the other on Linux).
     Even if for economic or other reasons they can't
     change now their OS, they can use Free Software.

  If I said something that was previously discussed,
  just ignored me ;o)

--
 Vanessa  Conchodon                            ^ee^
                                               (_/ `-^-.
 e-mail :  nessie'at'little-monster"."org        .`___  \
                                                 (_) (_) \_^_.