4 ms·

Thanks for engaging me on this, genuinely appreciate it amidst the torrent of downvotes (would be interested to hear more of the opinions of those who downvoted

by ramzyo 7y ago

Thanks for engaging me on this, genuinely appreciate it amidst the torrent of downvotes (would be interested to hear more of the opinions of those who downvoted me). Yeah, good question and something I've been wrestling with a lot myself. I used to think "free" meant monetarily free, but lately (in the last few years, call it aging, I dunno), I've started to subscribe to the notion of "free" as championed by the Free Software Foundation. Here's a good quote that lack's context, but gives a good idea of what my thoughts are "The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice." Link here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

Avamander 7y ago
I wish there'd be a better way to differentiate free (as in freedom) software and free (as in monetary cost).
- shagie 7y ago
  The alternate naming of "libre software" exists though is not used too much. From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html > “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.
icebraining 7y ago
Thing is, while the "Free" in "Free Software" is ambiguous, the "F" is FOSS has always meant "free as in freedom". It's not a new interpretation by feross (and I think the downvoters are reacting negatively to that suggestion).
- ramzyo 7y ago
  Yeah, I think my wording in the original post is to blame here. What I was trying to get across was that Feross has previously been vocal about his belief that his software was both FOSS and monetarily free. Now, he seems to be exploring the possibility that his code can still be FOSS, and monetarily free in concept, but perhaps walks the path Facebook, Google, et. al have that has lead to the much maligned cliche' "if you're not paying, you're the product." How far down that path does one have to go to lose the spirit of FOSS, if at all? Interesting to think about.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Well, the GNU project itself, and its founder (RMS), who is by any standard a strict follower of that philosophy, thinks that Free Software should be sold - and for as much as one can charge [1]. I'd say that the two are not really on the same path; if anything, they work against each other. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
    - ramzyo 7y ago
      Interesting, thanks for pointing this out!

by ramzyo 7y ago

Avamander 7y ago

I wish there'd be a better way to differentiate free (as in freedom) software and free (as in monetary cost).

shagie 7y ago
The alternate naming of "libre software" exists though is not used too much. From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html > “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.

icebraining 7y ago

Thing is, while the "Free" in "Free Software" is ambiguous, the "F" is FOSS has always meant "free as in freedom". It's not a new interpretation by feross (and I think the downvoters are reacting negatively to that suggestion).

ramzyo 7y ago
Yeah, I think my wording in the original post is to blame here. What I was trying to get across was that Feross has previously been vocal about his belief that his software was both FOSS and monetarily free. Now, he seems to be exploring the possibility that his code can still be FOSS, and monetarily free in concept, but perhaps walks the path Facebook, Google, et. al have that has lead to the much maligned cliche' "if you're not paying, you're the product." How far down that path does one have to go to lose the spirit of FOSS, if at all? Interesting to think about.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Well, the GNU project itself, and its founder (RMS), who is by any standard a strict follower of that philosophy, thinks that Free Software should be sold - and for as much as one can charge [1]. I'd say that the two are not really on the same path; if anything, they work against each other. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
  - ramzyo 7y ago
    Interesting, thanks for pointing this out!