Richard Stallman wants to popularise the term GNU/Linux instead of using the currently popular term Linux. He correctly states that the term Linux, besides being thoroughly inaccurate, totally fails to introduce new users to the legal and philosophical concepts that underlie the basis of the GNU/Linux OS; but is it feasible to make such a change at this late stage?

With Independence Day coming up, I want to do a series of posts about freedom and what "free software" actually means. The English language is weak in the area of freedom, so when somebody says "free software" they think "free of charge" or "gratis" (to use the Latin term for the concept), which can really throw you, since most free software is available to anyone without monetary cost.

"Openness" may be reaching hyperbolic proportions in Silicon Valley, but the idea is relatively good natured at heart. The practice is rooted in the notion that sharing various assets (i.e., underlying code, operating and communication standards) benefits both consumers and businesses. However, one could argue that the current fad of openness is little more than a Trojan horse

What is a derivative work of open source software? "The answer is I don't know -- and the fact is most people don't know," Jason Wacha, general counsel for MontaVista Software, said in a recent webinar. "The 'derivative works' definition hasn't been that well defined. There are 12 U.S. circuits, and each has its own definition -- some have none."

Most Linux users out there, think that their whole system is named just “Linux” (or perhaps the distribution name). For a large number of reasons, which I do not intend to analyze in this post, this is not, and should not be the case.

"Once upon a time, the term "open source" was coined to save the free-software world from itself--or, rather, from the free-software zealots, as you can read on the Open Source Initiative's Web site."