3 ms·

> “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study,

> “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.

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.