Confusing language, was Re: Help help.. please.i am totaly new in ada programing

[tmoran@bix.com]

>> If "somenoun" is speech, isn't that understood differently
>> than gratis?
>as Preben points out, the default meaning of the adjective free
>does depend on the noun, ...

  Certain adjectives are only meaningful when applied to certain
nouns.  Thus "purple" does not apply to the nouns "light-year" or
"freedom".  Free(gratis) can apply to "beer" or "speech" (as in
"Bob Dole will be giving a free speech tonight at 7 pm", but in a
non-slave owning world, it does not apply to "people".
Free(libre) applies to both "people" and "speech".  So "free
people" and "free beer" each has a single, unambiguous
interpretation.  "Free speech" and "free software" have multiple
interpretations.  Sometimes context disambiguates, as in "The
Constitution protects free speech", where it is clear we are using
free(libre).  If a context allows multiple meanings of "free",
then it is ambiguous and leads to confusion and some other
adjective or phrase must be used by those trying to avoid confusion.

  Early messages in this thread discussed free(gratis) software.
Robert Dewar said (quoted in <381DE427.4A04F864@maths.unine.ch>)
> Of course, there is no cost free solution under Windows either,
Later in the thread he said (<7vnd2f$c8p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>)
>When we talk about the only free solution being GNU/Linux + GNAT
>we are not talking about price (gratuit), we are talking about
>free software (libre). It is an important distinction.
and proceeded as if the discussion was on free(libre).  This is
certainly yet another demonstration of how these two uses of "free"
lead to confusion.
  There are some contexts, such as most messages from Robert Dewar,
where "free" is not ambiguous, just as "Democratic Republic" had an
unusual, but not ambiguous, meaning when used by leaders of the old
German Democratic Republic.  Unfortunately, the great majority of
people aren't regular members of the small linguistic community where
these words have their uncommon meaning, and are thus often confused
or misled.

  To reply to the ad hominem argument:
>Well maybe it depends on motives. We often find that people in
>the business of selling proprietary software like to go out of
>their way to try to confuse this issue. So perhaps if you are
  I think it's clear that the phrase "free software" promotes
misinterpretation, and I propose changing it to lessen confusion.
Here that confusion, like most advertising phrases, makes the
product more attractive to the misled.  If we are talking motive,
then, given the pre-existence of the word "freeware", and the
attempt to also pretend that a "copyleft" is not a "copyright", I
suspect misinterpretation was not unintended by those in the
business of promoting "free(libre) software".

>Tom Moran (who incidentally is involved in selling proprietary software
  Actually, I'm rather proud of being a professional who's been
able to earn a livelihood from creating software that many people
have found useful enough to pay for.  As for selling(promoting)
proprietary(copyrighted) software, I certainly take a back seat to
the President of ACT.  And one should always take into account the
motives of anyone pushing their own product or way of doing things.

  In writing for humans, as in writing for computers, what's
important is the effect on the recipient.  The good writer will
say things that have the effect he wants and will avoid
constructions that are likely to lead to an interpretation he
doesn't want.