9 ms·

How I realised “Free Software” is a better term than “Open Source”

110 points by xylon 9y ago

Safety1stClyde 9y ago
> A month ago I wrote an article called "How I realised “Open Source” is a better term than “Free Software”". Now I change my mind completely and explain why everything I said was actually wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pACePi441ds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pACePi441ds
justinpombrio 9y ago
The main point seems to be that the term "free software" is misleading, so you get to describe its benefits when someone asks you what it is.
- notahacker 9y ago
  Or, more likely, the term is so effective at misleading that 99% of people hearing a reference to it assume it means software they don't have to pay for, and don't ask what it means at all. cf Open Source, which is unlikely to be misunderstood and likely to be the basis for a discussion on why access to source code is important with anyone that isn't familiar with the concept. The whole article reads like parody tbh. Also like the argument that true software freedom involves not being free to use proprietary software, because politics, and the bit about treating non-free software users as heretics also being important for "a society that stands up for what is good"
  - stinos 9y ago
    My thoughts exactly. To a lot of people (if I'd guess, I'd say a vast majority indeed) it just means 'free' as opposed to 'paying money for it'. Especially because used in combination with 'software' of which most people know there is also a paid-monney-for-it version. So no they won't ask what it means. If you want to express something means 'free' as in 'freedom' (and other meanings the article gives to it) then a more effective way to communicate that might be coming up with a term better epxressing that than just 'free'. Thinking of it from that angle, maybe 'open' isn't even that bad.
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    My thoughts exactly. I get what they're trying to do with the free software term but they're ignoring the psychology of the masses. Once a definition has taken hold, it's best to use it the way it was solidified or create a new one for a new concept. Bringing up "free," correcting the user that it's about political freedom, politicizing software, and so on will bring up many tangents like how people will get paid or should they. Open-source w/ its differentiators focuses right on the benefits to the user. I follow-up with real-world examples with things such as car development or repair to help them see necessity of the benefits. Also explain how copyright and patent monopolies reinforce the problems with simplest examples I can get. This approach has worked well where people usually agree with most of it regardless of political spectrum. The next thing they ask is about quality of stuff nobody was paid to write. Replies to that seem to boil down to whether they trust me to assess and tell them the truth. Very impacted by their own beliefs on work ethic and markets.
  - vorg 9y ago
    > The whole article reads like parody tbh The "I've now changed my mind" bit seems suspicious, like he planned it out from the very first article. I suspect he'll publish a third piece in a few weeks saying neither term sounds OK, then suggest his own new term that "just occurred to him". Of course all 3 articles will have been a marketing strategy for the new term from the very beginning. I personally like "open software" (without the "source") because it sounds like it includes the important ideas from both "free (libre)" and "open source", but without suggesting anything about a free price. It also suggests an "open process" of development, something lacking in many free(libre) and open source projects.
an_account 9y ago
And both, while noble causes, are unrealistic for most software products.
- dTal 9y ago
  I would assert the contrary, that the types of software projects that benefit from keeping the source secret are the minority. Most software is written to fill some immediate and boring need, not as a commercial product or business logic secret sauce. There's no real downside to sharing that - most likely no one finds it useful, but on the off chance they do you suddenly have help with it. Admittedly it's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma; no one wants to put in the (certain) effort of packaging up their software for external consumption for the (uncertain) benefit of external help. But the culture is definitely shifting.
  - loup-vaillant 9y ago
    Availability bias. Most software people see is mass-distributed software: browser, OS, office suite, games… And it is much easier to extract money mass-distributed software when it is proprietary. In reality, most software that is actually made is custom software. Software that only a handful of people see, because it has only 1 customer, if any. Making that software free makes it easier to extract money from (at least in the short term), because source code availability is often sold for a price (the understanding being, giving the source code also means giving up on exclusivity for later maintenance).
    - Ace17 9y ago
      > In reality, most software that is actually made is custom software. Do you have a source for this claim? (not denying, just curious to look at the numbers!)
      - loup-vaillant 9y ago
        I recall Richard Stallman saying custom software comprises over 90% of the effort. I myself has to physically meet one person who is currently working on massively distributed software. (I have met some who have worked in games in the past.) I don't have anything more precise, but it seems to make sense.
valine 9y ago
I'm personally not a fan of the term free software. It makes me think of trashy freemium software filled with ads and tricks to get you to install browser extensions. Using the term open source creates a nice distinction between ad funded software and truly free software.
- dandelion_lover 9y ago
  In contrast, for me "open source" literally means opened sources, i.e. one can read the source code. "Libre software" or FLOSS may be better alternatives for those who care.
  - glubGlub 9y ago
    "Libre software" and FLOSS immediately sound politicized to my ear. As in, such projects carry baggage, in the form of conflict and infighting among developers, and one can expect irritating pedantry when discussing use and preferences. Usually, you'll encounter something akin to fanatical fans, expressing highly opinionated views about minor details. Sometimes it's because lawyers have been involved. It's not necessarily toxic, but often reflects splintered cellular activity, among groups seeking to distinguish themselves from one another for some reason.
    - dandelion_lover 9y ago
      >"Libre software" and FLOSS immediately sound politicized to my ear. They are, because pursuing your rights is a political move. "Free software is a political movement; open source is a development model." — Richard Stallman [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#cite_note-95 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#cite_note-95 >Usually, you'll encounter something akin to fanatical fans <...> As in any fight for freedom there are all kinds of people: those who do not understand, those who pretend they do not understand, those who do not know why they are fighting, and so on. No one of them defines the goal of the fight though.
      - waaiermat 9y ago
pjmlp 9y ago
I foresee that in about 10 years time when everything besides the Linux kernel has been replaced by business friendly licenses, we will be back to the days of shareware and public domain. Personally I don't care, as I mostly use commercial software, but I bet those FOSS devs that helped change the landscape and won't be able to access whatever code comes in their devices might think otherwise.
- jeremyjh 9y ago
  Lots of software have been licensed under Apache, BSD and MIT licenses for two decades...why do we need another decade for this doom to arrive and what are the early signs we can see now?
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Because LLVM wasn't a thing, nor the ongoing replacement of GPL stack like what Google is trying with Fuchsia. How are you enjoying the PS 4 features that were added to FreeBSD and LLVM? Already updated it with your set of changes?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - floatboth 9y ago
      Companies don't contribute code to FOSS projects because a copyleft license forced them to. (If all they need is to comply with the GPL, they just throw an undocumented unsupported code dump onto their website!!!) Companies contribute code because the upstream project will maintain the code for them! Sony PS4 is a horrible example to cherry-pick. They probably didn't do any serious modifications to anything, they mostly built their stuff on top. A much better example: Netflix upstreaming their reimplementation of sendfile() to FreeBSD. Because it's been upstreamed, they don't have to maintain it for compatibility with other upstream changes anymore, people who make those changes will fix the sendfile() code.
      - 9y ago
crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
I'm looking forward to the followup where they realize "Free and Open" is a better term than "Free" or "Open."
keppanaviimen 9y ago
Free Software makes people think of "freemium" software.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  Most people just think they get it without paying for it. That's the universal definition of free at least in the U.S.. Attempts to redefine it are foolish. When they talk about freedom, they literally say freedom. I'd have gone with Freedom-Respecting Software if I was, say, trying to tie in freedom with software for a U.S. audience. I have no idea what would appeal to people in other countries.
  - Kim_Bruning 9y ago
    Other countries have separate words for "free" as in speech, and "free" as in beer. Eg. french has libre and gratuit. German has frei and gratis.
    - nickpsecurity 9y ago
      I suspected as much. Thanks for tip.
gumby 9y ago
>> It’s not really about Freedom at all, because >99% of computer users are non-programmers. > Free Software gives us as a society the freedom to control our computers. And it gives us as individuals the freedom learn how to program them if we want to. Most people are not car mechanics yet they benefit from the rules that require 3 party products and repair shops to be allowed to operate. And the ability to rapidly build upon the work of others reduces the barriers for new, interesting products to be built, which benefits everyone, even non-programmers.
- educar 9y ago
  Yes but you system is unable to create monopolies which is what business owners want.
  - eeZah7Ux 9y ago
    Only big fish businesses benefit from monopolizing markets, everybody else suffers from it.
    - ghostDancer 9y ago
      Those are the ones who pay politicians to change laws for their benefit.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Mizza 9y ago
I always wish they used the term "liberated" rather then "free". "Liberated software" detaches from prices, detaches from licensing, keeps the desired political associations, and translates fairly well internationally.
- grzm 9y ago
  I understand where you're coming from. To me, "liberated" implies that the software wasn't free in the past. I think that's one of the reasons for the use of "libre" in some circles. Now I've got images of a commando raid on a data center running through my head. They're throwing open the doors to the cages and racks. Jerry Bruckheimer, call me. Let's talk.
  - Mizza 9y ago
    I suppose so, but I don't see that as a disadvantage of the term, in fact it opens up an interesting aspect of it: all software is, in a sense, imprisoned by default. The author must explicitly "liberate" it for it to be considered free.
niceperson 9y ago
[quoted as in article] >>DRM is great because it stops people pirating movies. >It's like saying police brutality is good because it deters bad dudes. If we have to do despicable things to force people to pay for things then our society is broken. lmao
_tramjoe 9y ago
What? As terms, none is "better" than the other, those are different things. A simple google search will reveal the definitions.
the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
What Open Source achieved is that we can now build businesses and consimer products quickly by sharing innovation with few strings attached. Free software has limited overlap with that particular benefit of Open Source. At this point in time I think of the two things as widely different so the question does not even come up what's the better term.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  True so long as you aren't including GPL2 or GPL3 as open source - hellualot of strings there for anyone with a hardware or software patent, which is why so many billions have been spent replacing those licenses with more liberal (MIT, BSD) ones across so much software.
  - snakeanus 9y ago
    Patents are cancer. Also, GPLv2 does not say anything about patents.
    - Nomentatus 9y ago
      Google implicit patent grant. Turns out it does. Just doesn't use the word. Re patents, how would you have James Watt raise money for his steam engine? It took long enough with the patent he got.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    So how well are *BSD doing in the market in regards to GNU/Linux? When the only thing standing will be the Linux kernel, don't be surprised by the amount of "freedom" you will get.
    - Nomentatus 9y ago
      The rights granted to the Linux kernel are "stranded" - the kernel can't do anything by itself so licensing to only it doesn't matter, so Google paid to redo the GNU libraries under a BSD license to strand the kernel rights. Even so, with Fuschia Google is replacing the Linux kernel, too, with its own BSD (or MIT) licensed kernel. So, BSD is actually taking the whole field, particularly measured by sales.
WBrentWilliams 9y ago
I've been kicking around a business plan idea for about seven years: A software marketplace for items under a GNU license. The key: I neglect to put that fact in the marketing. The full license is posted with the software download, via a pop up EULA-style window before the download proceeds complete with an "I Agree" nuisance button. The market starts with a price discovery model where I suggest a price and allow the person pay whatever they want. After some data gathering, I simply obfuscate the "pick-your-price" mechanism. Yes, this is a bit of cherry-picking, where I employ some dark patterns. My reason for this thought experiment is the crux of this article and discussion: How do you explain software in the English language for which the rights of the end user are enshrined while leaving a profit-path open for the creator? My reply is: You don't. You focus, instead, on making the process of obtaining the software as friendly and service-oriented as possible. I wonder how spectacularly this idea will fail?
- 45h34jh53k4j 9y ago
  We have a software marketplace for items under a GNU license. # apt-get install package I would say you will fail most spectacularly, but it seems to work for RedHat Enterprise Linux
  - WBrentWilliams 9y ago
    You would have a point if # apt-get required registering a credit card number. Last I checked, it does not. True, apt is a pedantically-speaking economic marketplace: a true free market. It is a free market based on ideas, usage, and popularity. It is not a market based on directly moving funds to the software creators. GNU encourages software creators to sell their software for as much money as they can make while using their license. What I am playing around with as a thought experiment is a method to create a market that trades the scarcity of a software writer's creativity for money. And yes, the attempt would probably fail spectacularly. Anyone who wants to attempt to execute on my idea is free to do so. Ideas are cheap. Execution is expensive.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    With RHEL you are paying for support, not software.
openfuture 9y ago
When I talk about free software I make sure to mention the word 'infrastructure' because that's what it is. Just like roads or electricity it is a predicate for building a business (life) on top of. Look at the biggest companies in the world (google, apple, facebook , amazon, microsoft ..) they own platforms i.e. infrastructure! but since these platforms aren't free you hear constant complaints from those who try to build a life on top of them (app store ranking not fair? Search not fair? OS/messenger/web browser/social network is walled garden? Etc.) But even breathe the suggestion that taxes should support building reliable infrastructure (i.e. already existing free software projects) and you'll get a "government shouldn't interfere with functioning business" response.. no matter what structural risk that business carries for society and even though the "interfering" is just offering a viable alternative.
- adrianN 9y ago
  I would be happy if taxes couldn't be used to pay for nonfree software. If all government servers and government office PCs and school computers had to run free software, there surely would be money to support its development.
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    FWIW, the goal of the still-working-to-fully-launch funding system Snowdrift.coop is to do the best we could on a voluntary basis in the absence of tax-funded free/libre/open work. Like all public goods, these things are the sort that make sense to fund through taxation, but getting political power to make that happen is even harder than a half-way effort to increase voluntary mutually-assured donations…
    - nobodyorother 9y ago
      I'd love it if SD.C allowed users to contribute extra money each period that was banked as an endowment-like-fund and drawn on only to cover unexpected shortages. They're doing neat things, and I'd love to see it up and running.
- 9y ago
hannob 9y ago
This is a bit funny. His argument is that the "Free Software" explanation is longer and thus gives you more opportunity to explain it properly. However originally the opposite is the case: The FSF explains free software with the four freedoms [1], the OSIs Open Source Definition has 10 points [2]. If you dig into them you'll realize that they more or less mean the same. Which is also usually the point I tend to make in these debates: How you call it isn't so important, important is what it means. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition [2] https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
smichel17 9y ago
At snowdrift.coop we believe both freedom and openness are important values, neither of which encompasses the other. So, we use the acronym FLO, for free/libre/open, which has the nice side effect of sounding like the English word "flow". https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/free-libre-open https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/free-libre-open --- The author misses the most important reason, in my opinion, why "free software" is also a bad term: people think they already know what it means, and thus don't really pay attention when you try to explain it. As such, I've stopped using it completely during my advocacy. Instead, I use "FLO software", "software freedom", or "unrestricted software" - the latter being good for when I don't have time to explain fully but also don't want to give the wrong impression.
peatmoss 9y ago
I realize that Stallman is a polarizing character, but I think the best rationale for Free Software (the concept, perhaps not the term) being better than Open Source is articulated by Stallman himself: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... I liken democratic institutions such as free elections and due process to the differences between Open Source and Free Software. We don't do these things primarily because of their instrumental utility or because they necessarily yield the "best" results (e.g. Brexit, Trump, climate policy, etc.). We could imagine a political framework with a benevolent computer working as dictator that might do a better job, for some definition of better. Instead, we have free elections and due process because we believe that they are, morally and ethically speaking, the right thing to do. If you believe as I do, that the human capacity for reasoning is greatly magnified by computers, then that's a recognition that human cognition and computers are in some way linked. Computers are the factors of production. De-democratizing those factors of production—even if Microsoft/Apple/Google/Facebook make a great product—is de-democratizing human thought to some degree.
galaxyLogic 9y ago
Think about a cell-phone which has a built-in battery you can't replace. Isn't that bit like software you can't modify? Now should we require the cell-phone manufacturers to make their batteries replaceable on ideological basis? It probably makes it cheaper to produce the cell-phone if the battery is non-replaceable. Similarly making your software open-source probably has costs associated with it. Should we insist that every producer of software must make their product open-source? If it is unethical to produce closed-source software then clearly we should. No?
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  >It probably makes it cheaper to produce the cell-phone if the battery is non-replaceable. From the manufacturers point of view, it's cheaper and more profitable. It doesn't help the consumer though, I upgraded phones sooner than I otherwise would have because my battery was dying. >Similarly making your software open-source probably has costs associated with it. In the current climate, yes. If all software was already free, you could save a lot of money not needing to repeat work that has been done. We ideally should insist all software is free, but not everyone agrees that proprietary software is unethical and laws aren't always driven by what is ethical.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > Think about a cell-phone which has a built-in battery you can't replace. Isn't that bit like software you can't modify? No, it misses the essential point: Software freedom is primarily about power, not about being able to modify software. If by "you", you mean "noone", that's not really what free software is concerned with. What free software is concerned with is if there is only one party that can swap out the battery, and that party is not you, therefore making you dependent on a monopoly. Building software that literally noone can modify (aka "unmaintainable code") might be a bad idea, but for reasons largely orthogonal to software freedom.
ams6110 9y ago
Bottom line nobody outside of the software community cares, and those in the community already know what "free software" is.
- quadrangle 9y ago
  I've had TONS of experience with dozens, maybe hundreds of people professionally involved in software who did not understand free software until I talked with them.
squarefoot 9y ago
Free software is definitely better than Open Source, but only if you imply that free-as-in-freedom is granted. Otherwise you often get something free-as-in-beer only like a mobile phone OS, which you surely don't have to pay for, but restrict your use of it in many ways and doesn't respect your privacy, all aspects having nothing in common with the concept of freedom. GNU GPL grants this freedom, but the term "free" is often abused to imply free-as-in-beer without the end user noticing the difference.
anta40 9y ago
>> So in fact we must use only 100% Free Software to live the message and spread the message. For work & daily computing/tinkering, I don't mind ditching Windows completely and use FOSS system like Linux (I mean GNU/Linux). But leaving those AAA games is... kinda hard. Really really hard...
RichardHeart 9y ago
I found this Richard Stallman talk to be fantastic (found it here on HN) http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/rms-speech-arsdigita2001.ogg http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/rms-speech-arsdigita2001.og... In it he describes that he searched for better terms than "free" as in free speech not free beer and there were 60ish of them, but they all had problems of their own. the Free software movement did more to help open source OS's happen because it was it's goal, than open source has done to create free OS's (because their focus was only the specific problem they were solving, and not the holistic many parts of an open source OS.) Open source is less likely to pass the same licenses and freedom it was built on down to the next iteration, for it's not legally required to do so (which is why whether you got freedom with your X software or not was a function of where you got it from. X software was free, but became unfree if you got it compiled from certain vendors. Open source documentation is also important, as software wit documentation is better/easier to improve software. When you use non free software, you advertise that you're ok with not helping anyone else that might want you to, because you can't give them a copy of what you have. When about half of linux is Gnu and Gnu preceded linux, it's pretty unfair to the Gnu community that they get about 0 credit from many publications, events, the general public. Thus you can give free software to the world, and they'll never even understand what free as in speech and not beer is. Free software is a political movement, open source software is more politics agnostic. I think credit should be given where it is due, for only accurate assignment of credit can reward the good and punish the bad. P.S. Stallman is happy to see you make money on Free software. Free as in speech, not beer. Also the best numbers I could find on what percentage of linux is actually Gnu code is about 8% and linux code was about 9% with the amnt of Gnu going down quickly if you were working on an embedded system. I believe those numbers were from debian and 2014, but I'd be happy to hear a better analysis.

110 points by xylon 9y ago

> A month ago I wrote an article called "How I realised “Open Source” is a better term than “Free Software”". Now I change my mind completely and explain why everything I said was actually wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pACePi441ds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pACePi441ds

justinpombrio 9y ago

The main point seems to be that the term "free software" is misleading, so you get to describe its benefits when someone asks you what it is.

notahacker 9y ago
Or, more likely, the term is so effective at misleading that 99% of people hearing a reference to it assume it means software they don't have to pay for, and don't ask what it means at all. cf Open Source, which is unlikely to be misunderstood and likely to be the basis for a discussion on why access to source code is important with anyone that isn't familiar with the concept. The whole article reads like parody tbh. Also like the argument that true software freedom involves not being free to use proprietary software, because politics, and the bit about treating non-free software users as heretics also being important for "a society that stands up for what is good"
- stinos 9y ago
  My thoughts exactly. To a lot of people (if I'd guess, I'd say a vast majority indeed) it just means 'free' as opposed to 'paying money for it'. Especially because used in combination with 'software' of which most people know there is also a paid-monney-for-it version. So no they won't ask what it means. If you want to express something means 'free' as in 'freedom' (and other meanings the article gives to it) then a more effective way to communicate that might be coming up with a term better epxressing that than just 'free'. Thinking of it from that angle, maybe 'open' isn't even that bad.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  My thoughts exactly. I get what they're trying to do with the free software term but they're ignoring the psychology of the masses. Once a definition has taken hold, it's best to use it the way it was solidified or create a new one for a new concept. Bringing up "free," correcting the user that it's about political freedom, politicizing software, and so on will bring up many tangents like how people will get paid or should they. Open-source w/ its differentiators focuses right on the benefits to the user. I follow-up with real-world examples with things such as car development or repair to help them see necessity of the benefits. Also explain how copyright and patent monopolies reinforce the problems with simplest examples I can get. This approach has worked well where people usually agree with most of it regardless of political spectrum. The next thing they ask is about quality of stuff nobody was paid to write. Replies to that seem to boil down to whether they trust me to assess and tell them the truth. Very impacted by their own beliefs on work ethic and markets.
- vorg 9y ago
  > The whole article reads like parody tbh The "I've now changed my mind" bit seems suspicious, like he planned it out from the very first article. I suspect he'll publish a third piece in a few weeks saying neither term sounds OK, then suggest his own new term that "just occurred to him". Of course all 3 articles will have been a marketing strategy for the new term from the very beginning. I personally like "open software" (without the "source") because it sounds like it includes the important ideas from both "free (libre)" and "open source", but without suggesting anything about a free price. It also suggests an "open process" of development, something lacking in many free(libre) and open source projects.

an_account 9y ago

And both, while noble causes, are unrealistic for most software products.

dTal 9y ago
I would assert the contrary, that the types of software projects that benefit from keeping the source secret are the minority. Most software is written to fill some immediate and boring need, not as a commercial product or business logic secret sauce. There's no real downside to sharing that - most likely no one finds it useful, but on the off chance they do you suddenly have help with it. Admittedly it's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma; no one wants to put in the (certain) effort of packaging up their software for external consumption for the (uncertain) benefit of external help. But the culture is definitely shifting.
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  Availability bias. Most software people see is mass-distributed software: browser, OS, office suite, games… And it is much easier to extract money mass-distributed software when it is proprietary. In reality, most software that is actually made is custom software. Software that only a handful of people see, because it has only 1 customer, if any. Making that software free makes it easier to extract money from (at least in the short term), because source code availability is often sold for a price (the understanding being, giving the source code also means giving up on exclusivity for later maintenance).
  - Ace17 9y ago
    > In reality, most software that is actually made is custom software. Do you have a source for this claim? (not denying, just curious to look at the numbers!)
    - loup-vaillant 9y ago
      I recall Richard Stallman saying custom software comprises over 90% of the effort. I myself has to physically meet one person who is currently working on massively distributed software. (I have met some who have worked in games in the past.) I don't have anything more precise, but it seems to make sense.

valine 9y ago

I'm personally not a fan of the term free software. It makes me think of trashy freemium software filled with ads and tricks to get you to install browser extensions. Using the term open source creates a nice distinction between ad funded software and truly free software.

dandelion_lover 9y ago
In contrast, for me "open source" literally means opened sources, i.e. one can read the source code. "Libre software" or FLOSS may be better alternatives for those who care.
- glubGlub 9y ago
  "Libre software" and FLOSS immediately sound politicized to my ear. As in, such projects carry baggage, in the form of conflict and infighting among developers, and one can expect irritating pedantry when discussing use and preferences. Usually, you'll encounter something akin to fanatical fans, expressing highly opinionated views about minor details. Sometimes it's because lawyers have been involved. It's not necessarily toxic, but often reflects splintered cellular activity, among groups seeking to distinguish themselves from one another for some reason.
  - dandelion_lover 9y ago
    >"Libre software" and FLOSS immediately sound politicized to my ear. They are, because pursuing your rights is a political move. "Free software is a political movement; open source is a development model." — Richard Stallman [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#cite_note-95 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#cite_note-95 >Usually, you'll encounter something akin to fanatical fans <...> As in any fight for freedom there are all kinds of people: those who do not understand, those who pretend they do not understand, those who do not know why they are fighting, and so on. No one of them defines the goal of the fight though.
    - waaiermat 9y ago

pjmlp 9y ago

I foresee that in about 10 years time when everything besides the Linux kernel has been replaced by business friendly licenses, we will be back to the days of shareware and public domain. Personally I don't care, as I mostly use commercial software, but I bet those FOSS devs that helped change the landscape and won't be able to access whatever code comes in their devices might think otherwise.

jeremyjh 9y ago
Lots of software have been licensed under Apache, BSD and MIT licenses for two decades...why do we need another decade for this doom to arrive and what are the early signs we can see now?
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Because LLVM wasn't a thing, nor the ongoing replacement of GPL stack like what Google is trying with Fuchsia. How are you enjoying the PS 4 features that were added to FreeBSD and LLVM? Already updated it with your set of changes?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - floatboth 9y ago
    Companies don't contribute code to FOSS projects because a copyleft license forced them to. (If all they need is to comply with the GPL, they just throw an undocumented unsupported code dump onto their website!!!) Companies contribute code because the upstream project will maintain the code for them! Sony PS4 is a horrible example to cherry-pick. They probably didn't do any serious modifications to anything, they mostly built their stuff on top. A much better example: Netflix upstreaming their reimplementation of sendfile() to FreeBSD. Because it's been upstreamed, they don't have to maintain it for compatibility with other upstream changes anymore, people who make those changes will fix the sendfile() code.
    - 9y ago

crawfordcomeaux 9y ago

I'm looking forward to the followup where they realize "Free and Open" is a better term than "Free" or "Open."

keppanaviimen 9y ago

Free Software makes people think of "freemium" software.

nickpsecurity 9y ago
Most people just think they get it without paying for it. That's the universal definition of free at least in the U.S.. Attempts to redefine it are foolish. When they talk about freedom, they literally say freedom. I'd have gone with Freedom-Respecting Software if I was, say, trying to tie in freedom with software for a U.S. audience. I have no idea what would appeal to people in other countries.
- Kim_Bruning 9y ago
  Other countries have separate words for "free" as in speech, and "free" as in beer. Eg. french has libre and gratuit. German has frei and gratis.
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    I suspected as much. Thanks for tip.

gumby 9y ago

>> It’s not really about Freedom at all, because >99% of computer users are non-programmers. > Free Software gives us as a society the freedom to control our computers. And it gives us as individuals the freedom learn how to program them if we want to. Most people are not car mechanics yet they benefit from the rules that require 3 party products and repair shops to be allowed to operate. And the ability to rapidly build upon the work of others reduces the barriers for new, interesting products to be built, which benefits everyone, even non-programmers.

educar 9y ago
Yes but you system is unable to create monopolies which is what business owners want.
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  Only big fish businesses benefit from monopolizing markets, everybody else suffers from it.
  - ghostDancer 9y ago
    Those are the ones who pay politicians to change laws for their benefit.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Mizza 9y ago

I always wish they used the term "liberated" rather then "free". "Liberated software" detaches from prices, detaches from licensing, keeps the desired political associations, and translates fairly well internationally.

grzm 9y ago
I understand where you're coming from. To me, "liberated" implies that the software wasn't free in the past. I think that's one of the reasons for the use of "libre" in some circles. Now I've got images of a commando raid on a data center running through my head. They're throwing open the doors to the cages and racks. Jerry Bruckheimer, call me. Let's talk.
- Mizza 9y ago
  I suppose so, but I don't see that as a disadvantage of the term, in fact it opens up an interesting aspect of it: all software is, in a sense, imprisoned by default. The author must explicitly "liberate" it for it to be considered free.

niceperson 9y ago

[quoted as in article] >>DRM is great because it stops people pirating movies. >It's like saying police brutality is good because it deters bad dudes. If we have to do despicable things to force people to pay for things then our society is broken. lmao

_tramjoe 9y ago

What? As terms, none is "better" than the other, those are different things. A simple google search will reveal the definitions.

the_mitsuhiko 9y ago

What Open Source achieved is that we can now build businesses and consimer products quickly by sharing innovation with few strings attached. Free software has limited overlap with that particular benefit of Open Source. At this point in time I think of the two things as widely different so the question does not even come up what's the better term.

Nomentatus 9y ago
True so long as you aren't including GPL2 or GPL3 as open source - hellualot of strings there for anyone with a hardware or software patent, which is why so many billions have been spent replacing those licenses with more liberal (MIT, BSD) ones across so much software.
- snakeanus 9y ago
  Patents are cancer. Also, GPLv2 does not say anything about patents.
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    Google implicit patent grant. Turns out it does. Just doesn't use the word. Re patents, how would you have James Watt raise money for his steam engine? It took long enough with the patent he got.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  So how well are *BSD doing in the market in regards to GNU/Linux? When the only thing standing will be the Linux kernel, don't be surprised by the amount of "freedom" you will get.
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    The rights granted to the Linux kernel are "stranded" - the kernel can't do anything by itself so licensing to only it doesn't matter, so Google paid to redo the GNU libraries under a BSD license to strand the kernel rights. Even so, with Fuschia Google is replacing the Linux kernel, too, with its own BSD (or MIT) licensed kernel. So, BSD is actually taking the whole field, particularly measured by sales.

WBrentWilliams 9y ago

I've been kicking around a business plan idea for about seven years: A software marketplace for items under a GNU license. The key: I neglect to put that fact in the marketing. The full license is posted with the software download, via a pop up EULA-style window before the download proceeds complete with an "I Agree" nuisance button. The market starts with a price discovery model where I suggest a price and allow the person pay whatever they want. After some data gathering, I simply obfuscate the "pick-your-price" mechanism. Yes, this is a bit of cherry-picking, where I employ some dark patterns. My reason for this thought experiment is the crux of this article and discussion: How do you explain software in the English language for which the rights of the end user are enshrined while leaving a profit-path open for the creator? My reply is: You don't. You focus, instead, on making the process of obtaining the software as friendly and service-oriented as possible. I wonder how spectacularly this idea will fail?

45h34jh53k4j 9y ago
We have a software marketplace for items under a GNU license. # apt-get install package I would say you will fail most spectacularly, but it seems to work for RedHat Enterprise Linux
- WBrentWilliams 9y ago
  You would have a point if # apt-get required registering a credit card number. Last I checked, it does not. True, apt is a pedantically-speaking economic marketplace: a true free market. It is a free market based on ideas, usage, and popularity. It is not a market based on directly moving funds to the software creators. GNU encourages software creators to sell their software for as much money as they can make while using their license. What I am playing around with as a thought experiment is a method to create a market that trades the scarcity of a software writer's creativity for money. And yes, the attempt would probably fail spectacularly. Anyone who wants to attempt to execute on my idea is free to do so. Ideas are cheap. Execution is expensive.
- ams6110 9y ago
  With RHEL you are paying for support, not software.

openfuture 9y ago

When I talk about free software I make sure to mention the word 'infrastructure' because that's what it is. Just like roads or electricity it is a predicate for building a business (life) on top of. Look at the biggest companies in the world (google, apple, facebook , amazon, microsoft ..) they own platforms i.e. infrastructure! but since these platforms aren't free you hear constant complaints from those who try to build a life on top of them (app store ranking not fair? Search not fair? OS/messenger/web browser/social network is walled garden? Etc.) But even breathe the suggestion that taxes should support building reliable infrastructure (i.e. already existing free software projects) and you'll get a "government shouldn't interfere with functioning business" response.. no matter what structural risk that business carries for society and even though the "interfering" is just offering a viable alternative.

adrianN 9y ago
I would be happy if taxes couldn't be used to pay for nonfree software. If all government servers and government office PCs and school computers had to run free software, there surely would be money to support its development.
- quadrangle 9y ago
  FWIW, the goal of the still-working-to-fully-launch funding system Snowdrift.coop is to do the best we could on a voluntary basis in the absence of tax-funded free/libre/open work. Like all public goods, these things are the sort that make sense to fund through taxation, but getting political power to make that happen is even harder than a half-way effort to increase voluntary mutually-assured donations…
  - nobodyorother 9y ago
    I'd love it if SD.C allowed users to contribute extra money each period that was banked as an endowment-like-fund and drawn on only to cover unexpected shortages. They're doing neat things, and I'd love to see it up and running.
9y ago

hannob 9y ago

This is a bit funny. His argument is that the "Free Software" explanation is longer and thus gives you more opportunity to explain it properly. However originally the opposite is the case: The FSF explains free software with the four freedoms [1], the OSIs Open Source Definition has 10 points [2]. If you dig into them you'll realize that they more or less mean the same. Which is also usually the point I tend to make in these debates: How you call it isn't so important, important is what it means. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition [2] https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

smichel17 9y ago

At snowdrift.coop we believe both freedom and openness are important values, neither of which encompasses the other. So, we use the acronym FLO, for free/libre/open, which has the nice side effect of sounding like the English word "flow". https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/free-libre-open https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/free-libre-open --- The author misses the most important reason, in my opinion, why "free software" is also a bad term: people think they already know what it means, and thus don't really pay attention when you try to explain it. As such, I've stopped using it completely during my advocacy. Instead, I use "FLO software", "software freedom", or "unrestricted software" - the latter being good for when I don't have time to explain fully but also don't want to give the wrong impression.

peatmoss 9y ago

I realize that Stallman is a polarizing character, but I think the best rationale for Free Software (the concept, perhaps not the term) being better than Open Source is articulated by Stallman himself: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... I liken democratic institutions such as free elections and due process to the differences between Open Source and Free Software. We don't do these things primarily because of their instrumental utility or because they necessarily yield the "best" results (e.g. Brexit, Trump, climate policy, etc.). We could imagine a political framework with a benevolent computer working as dictator that might do a better job, for some definition of better. Instead, we have free elections and due process because we believe that they are, morally and ethically speaking, the right thing to do. If you believe as I do, that the human capacity for reasoning is greatly magnified by computers, then that's a recognition that human cognition and computers are in some way linked. Computers are the factors of production. De-democratizing those factors of production—even if Microsoft/Apple/Google/Facebook make a great product—is de-democratizing human thought to some degree.

galaxyLogic 9y ago

Think about a cell-phone which has a built-in battery you can't replace. Isn't that bit like software you can't modify? Now should we require the cell-phone manufacturers to make their batteries replaceable on ideological basis? It probably makes it cheaper to produce the cell-phone if the battery is non-replaceable. Similarly making your software open-source probably has costs associated with it. Should we insist that every producer of software must make their product open-source? If it is unethical to produce closed-source software then clearly we should. No?

boomboomsubban 9y ago
>It probably makes it cheaper to produce the cell-phone if the battery is non-replaceable. From the manufacturers point of view, it's cheaper and more profitable. It doesn't help the consumer though, I upgraded phones sooner than I otherwise would have because my battery was dying. >Similarly making your software open-source probably has costs associated with it. In the current climate, yes. If all software was already free, you could save a lot of money not needing to repeat work that has been done. We ideally should insist all software is free, but not everyone agrees that proprietary software is unethical and laws aren't always driven by what is ethical.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> Think about a cell-phone which has a built-in battery you can't replace. Isn't that bit like software you can't modify? No, it misses the essential point: Software freedom is primarily about power, not about being able to modify software. If by "you", you mean "noone", that's not really what free software is concerned with. What free software is concerned with is if there is only one party that can swap out the battery, and that party is not you, therefore making you dependent on a monopoly. Building software that literally noone can modify (aka "unmaintainable code") might be a bad idea, but for reasons largely orthogonal to software freedom.

ams6110 9y ago

Bottom line nobody outside of the software community cares, and those in the community already know what "free software" is.

quadrangle 9y ago
I've had TONS of experience with dozens, maybe hundreds of people professionally involved in software who did not understand free software until I talked with them.

squarefoot 9y ago

Free software is definitely better than Open Source, but only if you imply that free-as-in-freedom is granted. Otherwise you often get something free-as-in-beer only like a mobile phone OS, which you surely don't have to pay for, but restrict your use of it in many ways and doesn't respect your privacy, all aspects having nothing in common with the concept of freedom. GNU GPL grants this freedom, but the term "free" is often abused to imply free-as-in-beer without the end user noticing the difference.

anta40 9y ago

>> So in fact we must use only 100% Free Software to live the message and spread the message. For work & daily computing/tinkering, I don't mind ditching Windows completely and use FOSS system like Linux (I mean GNU/Linux). But leaving those AAA games is... kinda hard. Really really hard...

RichardHeart 9y ago

I found this Richard Stallman talk to be fantastic (found it here on HN) http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/rms-speech-arsdigita2001.ogg http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/rms-speech-arsdigita2001.og... In it he describes that he searched for better terms than "free" as in free speech not free beer and there were 60ish of them, but they all had problems of their own. the Free software movement did more to help open source OS's happen because it was it's goal, than open source has done to create free OS's (because their focus was only the specific problem they were solving, and not the holistic many parts of an open source OS.) Open source is less likely to pass the same licenses and freedom it was built on down to the next iteration, for it's not legally required to do so (which is why whether you got freedom with your X software or not was a function of where you got it from. X software was free, but became unfree if you got it compiled from certain vendors. Open source documentation is also important, as software wit documentation is better/easier to improve software. When you use non free software, you advertise that you're ok with not helping anyone else that might want you to, because you can't give them a copy of what you have. When about half of linux is Gnu and Gnu preceded linux, it's pretty unfair to the Gnu community that they get about 0 credit from many publications, events, the general public. Thus you can give free software to the world, and they'll never even understand what free as in speech and not beer is. Free software is a political movement, open source software is more politics agnostic. I think credit should be given where it is due, for only accurate assignment of credit can reward the good and punish the bad. P.S. Stallman is happy to see you make money on Free software. Free as in speech, not beer. Also the best numbers I could find on what percentage of linux is actually Gnu code is about 8% and linux code was about 9% with the amnt of Gnu going down quickly if you were working on an embedded system. I believe those numbers were from debian and 2014, but I'd be happy to hear a better analysis.