4 ms·

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 exten

by 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
      The early Linux movement that later became part of the Open Source movement was certainly also political. Stallman was actually one of the heroes of that movement, which he apparently didn't realize. The difference was strategy. The FSF wanted to ideologically educate and convert people while most people in the Linux movement were focused on the number of users. The more users the more influence. Facts on the ground instead of ideology. History has proven them right.
  - simondedalus 9y ago
    you can't be neutral on a moving train.
loup-vaillant 9y ago
Except some Open Source software is not, in fact, Free. Then there are sneaky variasions such as "Open Core", that indeed looks Open Source if you squint just right, but is pretty far removed from the original Free Software philosophy. Thankfully, Most languages don't have this problem, since they have 2 distinct adjective for "gratis" and "freedom".
zeta0134 9y ago
This is why I've always preferred FOSS, Free and Open Source Software. It's a bit more specific, alas however, FOSS seems to also be some sort of science program in the US, so it's ambiguous.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
ThatMightBePaul 9y ago
This. Free Software sounds cheap or trashy. It requires explanation. "Free as in beer, and Free as ..." Open Source is a marketing term to avoid that stigma.
- jeena 9y ago
  There is quite a difference between Free Software, which has the user rights as its main objective, and Open Source, which has the developers rights as its main objective. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
cJ0th 9y ago
All the terms we have suck for a different reason: * free - b/c freemium or worthless * open source - a term big companies who don't care about it like to use to project a positive image of themselves * libre - imo the best term atm. However, it just doesn't sound alluring. Idk, how about Freedomware ? ;)
- floatboth 9y ago
  How are you even supposed to pronounce "libre"? :D I think the "big companies who don't care about it" thing is exaggerated. Who cares about what terms they use?

by valine 9y ago

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
    The early Linux movement that later became part of the Open Source movement was certainly also political. Stallman was actually one of the heroes of that movement, which he apparently didn't realize. The difference was strategy. The FSF wanted to ideologically educate and convert people while most people in the Linux movement were focused on the number of users. The more users the more influence. Facts on the ground instead of ideology. History has proven them right.
- simondedalus 9y ago
  you can't be neutral on a moving train.

loup-vaillant 9y ago

Except some Open Source software is not, in fact, Free. Then there are sneaky variasions such as "Open Core", that indeed looks Open Source if you squint just right, but is pretty far removed from the original Free Software philosophy. Thankfully, Most languages don't have this problem, since they have 2 distinct adjective for "gratis" and "freedom".

zeta0134 9y ago

This is why I've always preferred FOSS, Free and Open Source Software. It's a bit more specific, alas however, FOSS seems to also be some sort of science program in the US, so it's ambiguous.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

ThatMightBePaul 9y ago

This. Free Software sounds cheap or trashy. It requires explanation. "Free as in beer, and Free as ..." Open Source is a marketing term to avoid that stigma.

jeena 9y ago
There is quite a difference between Free Software, which has the user rights as its main objective, and Open Source, which has the developers rights as its main objective. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

cJ0th 9y ago

All the terms we have suck for a different reason: * free - b/c freemium or worthless * open source - a term big companies who don't care about it like to use to project a positive image of themselves * libre - imo the best term atm. However, it just doesn't sound alluring. Idk, how about Freedomware ? ;)

floatboth 9y ago
How are you even supposed to pronounce "libre"? :D I think the "big companies who don't care about it" thing is exaggerated. Who cares about what terms they use?