3 ms·

I guess that is fair, or arguably fair. What would be a better name for it? "Free software" is similarly loaded ("free software is like free beer, software you

by remram 5y ago

I guess that is fair, or arguably fair. What would be a better name for it? "Free software" is similarly loaded ("free software is like free beer, software you don't pay for", "open source is like open house, you can get in the source"). Maybe "libre software"? "Permissive software"? The full "FOSS" or "FLOSS" acronyms? Should we stick to specific license names e.g. "GPL software" or "MIT software"? That's probably the safest as those usually include an actually recognized trademark.

chrisseaton 5y ago
If you care what the OSI thinks, then say 'OSI Approved Licensed Code' - you can already use that, and it's already protected by their registered trademark.
- remram 5y ago
  What if I don't particularly care?
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Well then just say whatever you want that's not restricted in any way. 'Open source' if you want to. Why did you ask if you don't care?
    - remram 5y ago
      I don't care what the OSI thinks, I do care what we call it. I asked what we call it.
fabianhjr 5y ago
> “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. Taken from: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html FSF and others have long argued the opposite of your comment: free is for freedom not gratis.
- remram 5y ago
  Yes they do, just like the OSI is clear on what open source is. But those terms don't explicitly mean that, which is why there is disagreement, especially if the groups supporting them fall into disrepute. I am asking what better name we can find for this, one that is self-evident rather than one that is only made unambiguous by the active work of either OSI or FSF.
  - EarlKing 5y ago
    No, we really can't, because this is a political issue rather than an issue of logic. The term "freeware" had an unambiguous definition before the FSF came along and decided to co-opt the term for its personal crusade, just like "open source" had an unambiguous definition[1] before the OSI came along to co-opt it in an effort to sell "free software" to businesses. You could adopt a new term tomorrow and people would still come along and try to co-opt it. How do I know? Because when people tried to co-opt Freeware, the term Shareware was adopted, and people came along to try to co-opt that. Likewise, when Freeware was co-opted as "Free Software", the OSI came along to bastardize it and repackage it as "open source" (co-opting and existing term). You cannot coin your way out of being co-opted by bad actors. [1] https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html
    - remram 5y ago
      I don't know if naming is a political issue, it is a social one. If I call my software "MIT licensed", there is no ambiguity, and no politics in the meaning (though the act of picking a license can be political I guess).
      - EarlKing 5y ago
        It is political in the sense that the acceptance of definitions is a matter of politics, not logic. If you call your software "MIT licensed" there can very well be ambiguity by virtue of muddying the situation and getting enough people to agree that your definition is correct such that uninvolved third parties have no idea who is right. This is the present situation with "open source", where the OSI has inserted itself as an arbiter of what is and is not open source, much as the FSF has inserted itself s an arbiter of what is and is not free software. Ultimately, whether you accept their definitions or pre-existing definitions does not boil down to logic, but whose politics you align with, and hence whose definition has greater utility for you such that you want to adopt and propagate it.
pabs3 5y ago
Other possibilities: "freedomware" or "software freedom" or "user respecting software".
- remram 5y ago
  Oh, I like freedomware. Though it is not immediately obvious what kinds of freedom; I can imagine Commons Clause software being called freedomware as well.
  - naniwaduni 5y ago
    Yes, it turns out to invite confusion when you try defining "freedom" by the circumscription of an accident of Cold War era history and object to other people reading the word as if it were English.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    It's very Orwellian sounding.
- r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
  Stallmanite software
- riedel 5y ago
  Actually FOSS (just as OSS) _only_ respects the freedom of the licencee. Any ethical restrictions that are not part of the legal environment (like export control) make open source "unfree" as uncompromised openness is a precondition. IMHO opinion freedom stops there where it restricts the freedom of someone else. I think FSF is in parts neoliberal and should engage more in an ethical discussion. Just claiming to be free of ideology is ideology itself... (Edit: made clear that it is not only a FOSS but also OSI "problem")
  - pabs3 5y ago
    Definitely that is the case. I think this essay probably applies to the FSF's position on the Ethical Source movement even though it wasn't written by them: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/mar/17/copyleft-ethical-source-putin-ukraine/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/mar/17/copyleft-ethical-...

by remram 5y ago

chrisseaton 5y ago

If you care what the OSI thinks, then say 'OSI Approved Licensed Code' - you can already use that, and it's already protected by their registered trademark.

remram 5y ago
What if I don't particularly care?
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Well then just say whatever you want that's not restricted in any way. 'Open source' if you want to. Why did you ask if you don't care?
  - remram 5y ago
    I don't care what the OSI thinks, I do care what we call it. I asked what we call it.

fabianhjr 5y ago

> “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. Taken from: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html FSF and others have long argued the opposite of your comment: free is for freedom not gratis.

remram 5y ago
Yes they do, just like the OSI is clear on what open source is. But those terms don't explicitly mean that, which is why there is disagreement, especially if the groups supporting them fall into disrepute. I am asking what better name we can find for this, one that is self-evident rather than one that is only made unambiguous by the active work of either OSI or FSF.
- EarlKing 5y ago
  No, we really can't, because this is a political issue rather than an issue of logic. The term "freeware" had an unambiguous definition before the FSF came along and decided to co-opt the term for its personal crusade, just like "open source" had an unambiguous definition[1] before the OSI came along to co-opt it in an effort to sell "free software" to businesses. You could adopt a new term tomorrow and people would still come along and try to co-opt it. How do I know? Because when people tried to co-opt Freeware, the term Shareware was adopted, and people came along to try to co-opt that. Likewise, when Freeware was co-opted as "Free Software", the OSI came along to bastardize it and repackage it as "open source" (co-opting and existing term). You cannot coin your way out of being co-opted by bad actors. [1] https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html
  - remram 5y ago
    I don't know if naming is a political issue, it is a social one. If I call my software "MIT licensed", there is no ambiguity, and no politics in the meaning (though the act of picking a license can be political I guess).
    - EarlKing 5y ago
      It is political in the sense that the acceptance of definitions is a matter of politics, not logic. If you call your software "MIT licensed" there can very well be ambiguity by virtue of muddying the situation and getting enough people to agree that your definition is correct such that uninvolved third parties have no idea who is right. This is the present situation with "open source", where the OSI has inserted itself as an arbiter of what is and is not open source, much as the FSF has inserted itself s an arbiter of what is and is not free software. Ultimately, whether you accept their definitions or pre-existing definitions does not boil down to logic, but whose politics you align with, and hence whose definition has greater utility for you such that you want to adopt and propagate it.

pabs3 5y ago

Other possibilities: "freedomware" or "software freedom" or "user respecting software".

remram 5y ago
Oh, I like freedomware. Though it is not immediately obvious what kinds of freedom; I can imagine Commons Clause software being called freedomware as well.
- naniwaduni 5y ago
  Yes, it turns out to invite confusion when you try defining "freedom" by the circumscription of an accident of Cold War era history and object to other people reading the word as if it were English.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  It's very Orwellian sounding.
r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
Stallmanite software
riedel 5y ago
Actually FOSS (just as OSS) _only_ respects the freedom of the licencee. Any ethical restrictions that are not part of the legal environment (like export control) make open source "unfree" as uncompromised openness is a precondition. IMHO opinion freedom stops there where it restricts the freedom of someone else. I think FSF is in parts neoliberal and should engage more in an ethical discussion. Just claiming to be free of ideology is ideology itself... (Edit: made clear that it is not only a FOSS but also OSI "problem")
- pabs3 5y ago
  Definitely that is the case. I think this essay probably applies to the FSF's position on the Ethical Source movement even though it wasn't written by them: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/mar/17/copyleft-ethical-source-putin-ukraine/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/mar/17/copyleft-ethical-...