Re: [tlug] Poll: OpenOffice or LibreOffice?

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

fgs@example.com writes:

 > first time I heard the word "libre" I found an unfortunate mistake.
 > 
 > Problem here is this being a key project to the Linux
 > environment. Never quite understood what they meant by
 > "libre".

As Bruno explains, it means "free" as in "free software."

Let me provide some background.  Microsoft and others long have
happily described their proprietary, limited license demos and
specifications as "free" and "open".  I don't think they have quite
had the nerve to use "open source" despite the serious fuckup at OSI
that allowed the trademark registration to lapse, but it's legal for
them to do so AFAIK.

So several people who were either not happy with the open source
movement as such, or simply wanted an unambiguous way to specify that
freedom of use, development, and redistribution was the primary topic
of discussion, started using "libre" for that purpose.  This goes back
to the late 90s at the latest -- it's well-established usage.

 > Free from corporate culture perhaps?

Split personalities like RMS often simultaneously mean that and deny
it.  Live with it; that's the price of having a charismatic cult
leader.  Would we today have a complete free/libre/open source
software environment without him?  Probably, IMO, but maybe not.  The
proprietary software legal infrastructure was developing rapidly at
the time of the GNU Manifesto.  Personally I thank God for the
existence of RMS (the better to piss off that atheist), and at the
same time fear his ongoing pernicious influence on the community.

 > Now people talking about " LibreSSH " makes me wonder and actually
 > worry what these people want to state by "libre".

OpenSSL, unfortunately, is governed by a license written by Butthead.
There's a copyleft clause in it that allows source distribution only
under the same license without requiring copyleft of *binary*
distributions.  The effect is that OpenSSL is not legally combinable
with GPLed software, but can be combined with proprietary software (as
well as any software licensed on a non-strong-copyleft basis).

LibreSSH and GnuTLS are unfortunately thereby necessary redundancies.

 > "Libre" as some reactionary word?

In some sense, yes, although a lot of people who use it are actually
open source advocates (Russ Nelson is one).

 > ... Because if there is one thing we can do to blow this up
 > overnight is to associate Linux with some anti-market,
 > anti-capitalism sort of thing...

Not gonna happen, so don't worry about it.  Linux is firmly embedded
in the pro-corporate, pro-(venture-)capitalism matrix by now.

 > China just recently retaliated M$FTWinXP's end-of-life with a ban
 > on Windows v.8 for their government computers.

Speaking of Butthead in government office....  I really feel sorry for
those of my Chinese students who plan to go back (most of them).
That's really stupid.  If China wants extended support for WinXP, they
certainly could afford to pay for it.  (OTOH, from all I hear, Metro
could be shaping up to be a Vista-size disaster.  Maybe it isn't
"retaliation", but rather foresight!)

 > That is to say, a landmark opportunity for Linux desktop (
 > http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/ubuntu-kylin ) but hopefully in a
 > responsible manner.

Again, won't happen.  China is pushing their own brand of Linux ("Red
Flag") AFAIK, and probably the company that produces it is owned by
one of Shu's sons-in-law or an ex-concubine.

 > That's one Linux aspect I've always felt quite uneasy about.

It's not a Linux problem at all.  Linus is a proprietary bastard at
heart.  He owns his OS.  He just happens to be mostly uninterested in
money (nevertheless being well-rewarded in that department), and most
happy when everybody can and does use his creation.  Thus he (fairly
carefully, AIUI) chose GPLv2 (no more and no less) as his license to
*enforce* *his* preferences, and provides a specific exemption for
proprietary drivers that use only public kernel APIs.[1]

There are people associated with kernel development (Alan Cox, Andrew
Tridgwell) who are free software fanatics, who have deliberately
infringed US copyrights and patents and therefore fear to enter the US
(and in Tridge's case, was the immediate cause of git), but they don't
represent the mainstream of kernel development even though they are
high-level "lieutenants" in the lk community.

People who push the "software must be free, proprietary software is an
evil violation of the fundamental rights of man" line are generally
associated with the GNU Project and the FSF.  It's really not a Linux
thing, it's just that the most common use of Linux involves a large
amount of GNU software.  Fortunately for use, RMS really is a fanatic
(unlike EAY, who was just childish) -- he won't do anything special to
stop us from using GNU software, he'll just piss and moan if we use
proprietary software, too.

Why-yes-I-am-typing-this-on-a-MacBook-Pro-why-do-you-ask-ly y'rs,


Footnotes: 
[1]  Cf. his autobiography, entitled: "Just for Fun: the Tale of an
Accidental Revolutionary" (or something pretty close to that).