4 ms·

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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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.

notahacker 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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.