4 ms·

"On the one side are companies that sell programs to make money. On the other are people who believe software must be totally free." Even before interviewing R

by Flimm 15y ago

"On the one side are companies that sell programs to make money. On the other are people who believe software must be totally free." Even before interviewing Richard Stallman, the journalist still didn't understand the difference between free/libre and free/gratis. Maybe one day, the FSF will give up trying to force people to use the word "free" the way they insist it must be used. That "free software" is gratis is a very common misconception. Stallman could do a thousand interviews, continually correcting this misconception, or he could realise that the FSF's name itself is spreading it.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
_delirium 15y ago
It's a tricky problem, because I'm not sure any word clearly encompasses the idea that "the user has the right to modify it and share their modifications". Open-source was one attempt, but has the other confusion that it's only about availability of source, not freedom to use/modify it. And RMS dislikes the OSI for other reasons, some of which are that they de-emphasize this user-centric freedom and instead focus more on things like why open-source software improves software reliability. "Creative commons" is a more successful attempt, but has a strong art/music/literature connotation (which is where it's caught on more, with associated phrases like "right to remix" that get at the same idea, but in a very media-focused way).
- lukifer 15y ago
  Perhaps "liberated software"? I personally think "open source" and "open license" are sufficient. But yeah, FSF and friends are tilting at windmills with the whole "beer/speech" refrain.
  - joke-away 15y ago
    "Software liberty" has a ring to it.
xd 15y ago
Maybe if they just tweaked it to "Freedom Software" .. people might get it.
thy 15y ago
when more peolple get actually interested in programming and hacking, the right interpretation, perhaps the philosophy itself would be obvious. I mean, when the kids get that to play with on the school..
- Flimm 15y ago
  I've come across this misconception many times even on Hacker News and FLOSS-related community sites.
  - Flimm 15y ago
    To see an example of an HN member who holds this misconception even after watching the interview, scroll up. It makes me really sad, both for the HN community and for the FSF.
paulhauggis 15y ago
"Even before interviewing Richard Stallman, the journalist still didn't understand the difference between free/libre and free/gratis." The problem is that "free/gratis" and "free/libre" are intertwined. If you sell an app to a user that is under the GNU license, they have the right to re-compile and re-release it for free (and it's allowed under the license). I've tried to charge for software under the GNU license. The type of people that use it generally expect it free as in beer. If it isn't, you get hate mail and someone will eventually release their own free version (which is an exact copy of the the paid edition) to compete with yours. You will slowly lose all of your sales and traffic unless you also release it for free.
- skeptical 15y ago
  Why would you expect to do one thing once and then resource to virtually cost-free copying to get money from it? If people won't pay for it is because they feel is not worth to pay. Indeed if I can get something for free I'm not so much inclined to pay for it. If you keep developing it and charge for access to a privileged access to updates, I'm sure you're sales will keep up. If you're updates are worth it, that is.
  - paulhauggis 15y ago
    "Why would you expect to do one thing once and then resource to virtually cost-free copying to get money from it? If people won't pay for it is because they feel is not worth to pay. Indeed if I can get something for free I'm not so much inclined to pay for it." People won't pay for it because all of my hard work and updates are immediately shared, for free, by someone that bought it once (allowable by the GNU license). You aren't allowed to restrict the user in the form of a proprietary license. "f you keep developing it and charge for access to a privileged access to updates, I'm sure you're sales will keep up. If you're updates are worth it, that is." As long as you are using the GNU license, these changes can be shared for free. This is why services are the way of the future. No piracy, updates are easy, and you also get to charge a monthly fee.
    - skeptical 15y ago
getsat 15y ago
> Maybe one day, the FSF will give up trying to force people to use the word "free" the way they insist it must be used. Maybe sooner than you think: http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/17/1735253/gpl-copyleft-use-declining-fast http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/17/1735253/gpl-co...
jhuni 15y ago
This isn't a problem in other languages.

by Flimm 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

_delirium 15y ago

It's a tricky problem, because I'm not sure any word clearly encompasses the idea that "the user has the right to modify it and share their modifications". Open-source was one attempt, but has the other confusion that it's only about availability of source, not freedom to use/modify it. And RMS dislikes the OSI for other reasons, some of which are that they de-emphasize this user-centric freedom and instead focus more on things like why open-source software improves software reliability. "Creative commons" is a more successful attempt, but has a strong art/music/literature connotation (which is where it's caught on more, with associated phrases like "right to remix" that get at the same idea, but in a very media-focused way).

lukifer 15y ago
Perhaps "liberated software"? I personally think "open source" and "open license" are sufficient. But yeah, FSF and friends are tilting at windmills with the whole "beer/speech" refrain.
- joke-away 15y ago
  "Software liberty" has a ring to it.

xd 15y ago

Maybe if they just tweaked it to "Freedom Software" .. people might get it.

thy 15y ago

when more peolple get actually interested in programming and hacking, the right interpretation, perhaps the philosophy itself would be obvious. I mean, when the kids get that to play with on the school..

Flimm 15y ago
I've come across this misconception many times even on Hacker News and FLOSS-related community sites.
- Flimm 15y ago
  To see an example of an HN member who holds this misconception even after watching the interview, scroll up. It makes me really sad, both for the HN community and for the FSF.

paulhauggis 15y ago

"Even before interviewing Richard Stallman, the journalist still didn't understand the difference between free/libre and free/gratis." The problem is that "free/gratis" and "free/libre" are intertwined. If you sell an app to a user that is under the GNU license, they have the right to re-compile and re-release it for free (and it's allowed under the license). I've tried to charge for software under the GNU license. The type of people that use it generally expect it free as in beer. If it isn't, you get hate mail and someone will eventually release their own free version (which is an exact copy of the the paid edition) to compete with yours. You will slowly lose all of your sales and traffic unless you also release it for free.

skeptical 15y ago
Why would you expect to do one thing once and then resource to virtually cost-free copying to get money from it? If people won't pay for it is because they feel is not worth to pay. Indeed if I can get something for free I'm not so much inclined to pay for it. If you keep developing it and charge for access to a privileged access to updates, I'm sure you're sales will keep up. If you're updates are worth it, that is.
- paulhauggis 15y ago
  "Why would you expect to do one thing once and then resource to virtually cost-free copying to get money from it? If people won't pay for it is because they feel is not worth to pay. Indeed if I can get something for free I'm not so much inclined to pay for it." People won't pay for it because all of my hard work and updates are immediately shared, for free, by someone that bought it once (allowable by the GNU license). You aren't allowed to restrict the user in the form of a proprietary license. "f you keep developing it and charge for access to a privileged access to updates, I'm sure you're sales will keep up. If you're updates are worth it, that is." As long as you are using the GNU license, these changes can be shared for free. This is why services are the way of the future. No piracy, updates are easy, and you also get to charge a monthly fee.
  - skeptical 15y ago

getsat 15y ago

> Maybe one day, the FSF will give up trying to force people to use the word "free" the way they insist it must be used. Maybe sooner than you think: http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/17/1735253/gpl-copyleft-use-declining-fast http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/17/1735253/gpl-co...

jhuni 15y ago

This isn't a problem in other languages.