GNU License for Hardware

[bruce at perens.com]

From: Robert J Hale <fxrjh at aurora.uaf.edu>
> I think Richard is right that it should reflect the Freedom of ___ but we
> should choose a new word that is not sonomyous with FREE, ie no charge.

Sigh. We've been through this loop before.

As co-instigator of "Open Source" and the person who originaly announced
it to the net and wrote most of the Open Source definition, I definitely
have mixed feelings on the subject. In my mind, "Open Source" was meant
to be a gentle introduction to free software with less rhetoric and more
demonstration of practical benefit.  But the Open Source Definition is
a definition of Free Software, and was never meant to be anything else.

The _introduction_ that Open Source provides should make people more
receptive to Richard's beliefs once they realize the benefits of free
software. The fact that it sometimes doesn't do so is our own fault.
Some of us have chosen to pick fights with Richard around issues where
we are _in_agreement_ for the most part, for no logical reason as far as
I can see. We should stop that.

	Thanks

	Bruce