3 ms·

Sure, if a term becomes mainstream it's use is obvious. If you need to explain the connotations of a word in a lengthy forum post it's a pretty good indicator t

by fsloth 7y ago

Sure, if a term becomes mainstream it's use is obvious. If you need to explain the connotations of a word in a lengthy forum post it's a pretty good indicator the use of the word is not adviced unless you are a tredn setter. If Elon Musk started to use the word libre software it might become a common enough term. If I use the word libre software I would have to first explain the word 90% of the time and become embarrased for an awkward and pointless use of an obscure term 85% of the time.

BeetleB 7y ago
>If you need to explain the connotations of a word in a lengthy forum post it's a pretty good indicator the use of the word is not adviced That is the current reality with the word "free". Pretty much every HN/Reddit submission on free software will have this discussion, with plenty of people disagreeing with the use of the word "free". Unfortunately, the usual response is simply a denial of reality: "Those who don't oppose the word 'free' have an ulterior anti-free agenda" or some similar sentiment.
- fsloth 7y ago
  I think the following analogue is apt: lots of people drink coffee in the post-Columbian world. When you order coffee and sugar most of the 8 billion people on the planet understand what you are talking about. However, if starbucks does not exist nobody understand what frappucino is. You can have the drink and have a very active internet group of frappucino afficionados, but despite the fact you know thousands of frappucinistas, still somehow the concept does not escape your internet sorority to a popular fame. You've tried ordering the frappucino at the local diner, patiently explaining the merits of this fantastic bewerage, convinced by the zeal of your fellows that this thing is the best thing to happen to coffee bean ever. To no avail. Or let's make this even more concrete. You are an english nobleman trying to order coffee in venice in 1614. No can do, coffee arrived in venice in 1615. Unless you know someone specific you cannot explain coffee to most people in venice 1614. In 1615 everyone knows, or think they know what it is, as clergymen banned coffee only little bit after it arrived... My point is, you can have a very good idea but ideas don't spread by the merit of their goodness. I mean, we've know decades what we are doing to the biosphere but only now the large population is taking notice as shit starts to actually it the fan. So people who discuss libre software fervently might be right, but that still does not mean you achieve anything by prosetylizing the concept to your employer. Last analogue: You were stolen from Senegal and now are planting cotton in Georgia. A guy called Sam claims he owns you and will beat you if you try to leave. You are convinced slavery is wrong and that no one should be able to own another human being. Most of you fellow slaves agree but somehow you've failed to convince Sam and the rest of his farmer friends.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    You've written a lengthy comment explaining the problem with using the word libre, while completely neglecting the problem with the word "free", which is what my comment is about. Attacking a position I'm not advocating is not fruitful. We have a long history of using the word "free". The problems with the word are not hypothetical - it's there in the history - to the point that it divides the free software community.

by fsloth 7y ago

BeetleB 7y ago

>If you need to explain the connotations of a word in a lengthy forum post it's a pretty good indicator the use of the word is not adviced That is the current reality with the word "free". Pretty much every HN/Reddit submission on free software will have this discussion, with plenty of people disagreeing with the use of the word "free". Unfortunately, the usual response is simply a denial of reality: "Those who don't oppose the word 'free' have an ulterior anti-free agenda" or some similar sentiment.

fsloth 7y ago
I think the following analogue is apt: lots of people drink coffee in the post-Columbian world. When you order coffee and sugar most of the 8 billion people on the planet understand what you are talking about. However, if starbucks does not exist nobody understand what frappucino is. You can have the drink and have a very active internet group of frappucino afficionados, but despite the fact you know thousands of frappucinistas, still somehow the concept does not escape your internet sorority to a popular fame. You've tried ordering the frappucino at the local diner, patiently explaining the merits of this fantastic bewerage, convinced by the zeal of your fellows that this thing is the best thing to happen to coffee bean ever. To no avail. Or let's make this even more concrete. You are an english nobleman trying to order coffee in venice in 1614. No can do, coffee arrived in venice in 1615. Unless you know someone specific you cannot explain coffee to most people in venice 1614. In 1615 everyone knows, or think they know what it is, as clergymen banned coffee only little bit after it arrived... My point is, you can have a very good idea but ideas don't spread by the merit of their goodness. I mean, we've know decades what we are doing to the biosphere but only now the large population is taking notice as shit starts to actually it the fan. So people who discuss libre software fervently might be right, but that still does not mean you achieve anything by prosetylizing the concept to your employer. Last analogue: You were stolen from Senegal and now are planting cotton in Georgia. A guy called Sam claims he owns you and will beat you if you try to leave. You are convinced slavery is wrong and that no one should be able to own another human being. Most of you fellow slaves agree but somehow you've failed to convince Sam and the rest of his farmer friends.
- BeetleB 7y ago
  You've written a lengthy comment explaining the problem with using the word libre, while completely neglecting the problem with the word "free", which is what my comment is about. Attacking a position I'm not advocating is not fruitful. We have a long history of using the word "free". The problems with the word are not hypothetical - it's there in the history - to the point that it divides the free software community.