I've pointed you here because, for some reason, you've been claiming that a piece of software isn't free software, or isn't open source. This claim is most often made regarding Daniel J Bernstein's software, like qmail and djbdns, but is not necessarily restricted to that software. -- Recently, Darren Reed of IPFilter fame re-clarified his license of ipfilter to specify similar restrictions to DJB's products. As for whether these license restrictions are a good thing or a bad thing is not discussed here -- authors with licenses like the above are usually quite vocal about their reasons, and whether I, you, or anyone else agree with them is irrelevant to this. I've sent you here because I believe you've co-opted two extremely useful words in the English language.

The Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative define licenses for Free Software and Open Source Software. These licenses are, IMHO, a Good Thing(tm), and I use a lot of Free/Open Source Software. You can read the exact definition of Free Software here, and the definition of Open Source software here. I am aware that both of these documents use the terms with and without capitalisation indiscriminately -- that's part of the problem.

I find this extremely explicit definition of two generic words put together harmful. How is one to describe software that is 'free', as in beer, and whose source is open to the public, if not as 'free software' and as 'open source'? Are we to be forced to describe qmail (for example) as 'qmail is software which you can get for free, and whose source is available to the public', when simply saying 'qmail is free software, and open source' does the job? Forcing a speaker or writer into arbitrary contortions in this way is pointless. Describing software as 'open source' or 'free software' should in no way be equivalent to saying 'Open Source Software' or 'Free Software'. The first two phrases are obviously meant generically, while the second two obviously are applying specific definitions, and to anyone familiar with the computer community, imply obvious connections to the respective definitions and organisations mentioned above. When you speak of software that costs nothing, say 'free software'. When you speak of GPLd or BSD licensed software (et al), say 'Free Software' -- it's that simple.

I've pointed you here because you, or someone you know quite well, sent me or mine a message infected by one of those silly viruses that depends on the gullibility of the end-user to replicate. You are mostly to blame for this. You ran an attachment in an email that was an obvious forgery. For example, the recent (July 2001) Sircam virus sends text like this:

From: Someone-you-know
Subject: Name-of-file-attached
Attachment: Double-extensioned_obvious_virus

Hi! I send you this file in order to have your advice
or:
I hope you can help me with this file that I send

etc., followed by some obviously poor English text. If you run attachments that come in an email that looks like this, and English is your primary language, then IMNSHO you deserve what you get. I hope the virus wipes out your hard drive's contents and impregnates your "dog|cat". If you insist on running random attachments, save them for one week, and keep your anti-virus signatures up to date. Always look at what you're running -- when was the last time that someone sent you "info.doc.bat" legitimately? Anti-virus authors need some of this blame (see this page ), but anybody who is actually looking at what they run cannot be caught by this kind of pathetically obvious junk. Please be more aware in future.