Open Source and Free Software are not mutually exclusive terms.
Perhaps you are thinking of the distinctions between copyleft software
versus permissively licensed software?
For those to whom this is old news, please forgive this brief review, but it
seems important at this point to get it out there to some who are unfamiliar
Historically speaking, the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) are a
bridge between the concept of free software as the Free Software Foundation
casts it and as the Open Source Initiative casts it, in that the FSF
came first, then the Linux kernel and distributions of it like Debian,
then the OSI developed their definition from the DFSG.
To take a more inductive approach, consider the broad overlap of software,
including Apache, that are released under licenses that qualify both as Open
Source by the OSD and as free software.
I'm afraid that anyone who has taken Sugar Labs use of the term "free" to
mean only "availabe-at-no-charge" has been laboring under a
misunderstanding. This is, in essence, why I find the broader construction
"free and open source software" to be not so problematic as other FSF
Using "open source" provides at least some signal for disambiguation, for
those who wish to understand better what we mean when we talk about
developing, distributing, using, teaching, and learning with this kind of
I think it's fair to ask, especially in an organization that has outreach so
thoroughly baked into its work, how purist we should be. For my own part,
I'm fine with going out to try to meet people where they're starting and
where they live, just so long as we know, acknowledge, remember, and work
towards bringing them back along with us to where we think everyone deserves
to be, which is, in short, to be free.
 It's fair to say that what we refer to as free and open source software
has antecedents to which it is reasonable to back propagate these
labels, but given the larger misunderstandings in this topic I'd rather
not quibble over these questions of precedent, terminology, and history
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:13:04PM -0700, Sameer Verma wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Samuel Greenfeld <***@greenfeld.org> wrote:
> > My experience with the SFC is that while they like to do license
> > enforcement, they are not platform purists. If you look at the bottom of
> > sfconservancy.org they have their own social media accounts.
> I completely agree with this. To say that it's all Free Software and
> nothing else is a mis-characterization. To take this extreme
> fundamentalist viewpoint would imply not being able to use web servers
> like Apache (Open Source, but not Free software).
> Sameer Verma, Ph.D.
> Professor, Information Systems
> San Francisco State University
> > The ".fla" file at least in #4758 actually may be the source code in binary
> > format. I do not have access to a copy of Shockwave to verify that.
> > But without knowing the license for the flash content (unless Samson knows
> > the source; the README is for a different .fla, and I cannot find it) it is
> > unclear if the bundle as a whole can be GPL v3 licensed.
> > I do not recall having an active ASLO account to check the other activity in
> > question.
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Sebastian Silva <***@fuentelibre.org>
> > wrote:
> >> On 13/06/17 12:50, Samson Goddy wrote:
> >> Your mentioning Facebook, iPhone, Windows, Flash, LinkedIn etc, do not fit
> >> with this agreement, so we would sincerely appreciate if you do not promote
> >> these entities while representing Sugar Labs.
> >> Could you explain more, because i dont understand. And also how did you
> >> think i might breach the agreement?
> >> While your promoting these entities does not breach the wording of the
> >> agreement, I believe it goes against the spirit of it. Please review
> >> information on GNU.org such as the following articles, to understand why
> >> such technologies are distributed in bad faith.
> >> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/keep-control-of-your-computing.html
> >> https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html
> >> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
> >> On the other hand, these Sugar Activities (by you) don't have proper
> >> sources available. This actually is a breach of the agreement, and they
> >> should have been removed:
> >> http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/addon/4759
> >> http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/addon/4758
> >> In accordance to the license file on those .xo bundles, I request that you
> >> share the source for the .swf Flash components embedded if you wrote them,
> >> otherwise please make sure they are removed from ASLO.
> >> Regards,
> >> Sebastian
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Sugar-devel mailing list
> >> Sugaremail@example.com
> >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> > _______________________________________________
> > SLOBs mailing list
> > ***@lists.sugarlabs.org
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
> Sugar-devel mailing list
Joe On ceding power to tech companies: http://xkcd.com/1118/
man screen | grep -A2 weird
A weird imagination is most useful to gain full advantage of
all the features.