Talk:FLOSS Concept Booklet
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
Contents |
[edit] Translation to German
Hi everybody,
I would like to translate this article to German for de.wikibooks.org. Do you think this makes sense already at this point, or shall I wait until it has become a revised version?
Best regards
Plux
[edit] What does "FLOSS" mean ?
What is the target audience of the "FLOSS Concept Booklet" ? What does "FLOSS" in the title mean ?
Is it just a typo -- should be "FOSS (Free/Open Source Software)" ?
If we're never going to use the acronym in the article, maybe we should spell it out in the title also.
--DavidCary 01:20, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Free (Libre) and Open Source Software is the acronym used in the UK public policy on - well, FLOSS.
Adrian Midgley
[edit] History section
The way the history has been presented, I guess the questions in the history section can be removed. It is also not possible to see the history separately as Stallman, Linus, GNU... It is all iterconnected.
[edit] Summarise
This question has gathered a lot of meat. Can somebody summarise it?
[edit] Rephrasing question and answer
I am moving the following question to the talk page. I am replacing it with a different question and answer.
Hold on a minute. I thought “User” just meant someone who uses a piece of software.
Interesting point. Yes, you are right. Our common understanding of the term “User” does suggest someone who simply ‘uses’ software. One of the most interesting characteristics of Free Software is the way in which this distinction between “user “ and “creator” begins to blur. Creators of Free Software are also its users and, those engaging with Free Software are also often (though not always) involved in the creation of the software. We’ll talk more about this point later.
[edit] Removing question
This stuff could be adapted and added to the history section.
What does GNU GPL stand for? ***should we have this*** ? GNU is the name of an operating system that is similar to UNIX, an operating system that has been in heavy use among academic and engineering circles since the late 1970s. Since the term UNIX is trademarked, GNU cannot legally call itself UNIX, no matter how similar it might be to it. To remove any threat of violating the trademark and as a tongue-in-cheek remark, GNU actually stands Gnu is Not UNIX. GNU is also the name of an influential foundation that propagates and promotes free software. A huge amount of free software in the world today is licensed under the GPL – the General Public License. This license is a copyleft license that incorporates the terms given in ***sec earlier***
[edit] Removed a question
The FLOSS booklet is a mini booklet, to be given as a handout. Right? So it is better to keep it short and sweet as posssible. Though the following question does bring a lot of understanding, I feel it is too much involved for a new comer. What do us say guys?
Vijay 04:44, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
End User License Agreements such as the one from Microsoft treat the users of software very differently from the way that users are treated and thought of in Free Software. How do these two differ ?
In general, a large part of the Microsoft EULA concerns itself with limiting your use of the software, and with absolving Microsoft from any responsibilities it may have with respect to the warranty. In contrast, Free Software Licenses spend most of their time specifying the rights allocated users, and the responsibilities for the use of the software from the perspective of software distributors or programmers who incorporate GPL code. Few user-level restrictions are evident.
(adapted from http://voidmain.is-a-geek.net/docs/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.html )
Broadly, all users of free software are, at the bare minimum considered to be potential creators of free software. The licenses reflect this by making sure that it is extremely easy for someone to transition from being a mere consumer of the software to a co-creator.
Broadly, all users of commercial software are considered to be mere passive consumers of the software. Great pains are taken to ensure that the passive user remains passive, regardless of any possible desire to be more involved with the software. What few rights commercial software licenses grant users are given grudgingly.
