5 ms·

Free Software is about freedom. Not paying rent to Microsoft or their partners.

keepamovin 3y ago
"Freedom for whom?" For the developers whose time they invested. For the users who are not "free" of their problems that prompt them to see these "free" solutions? Nothing about OSS is free. "Free" is a lie. Pernicious, in that it was passed off under the guise of some ideal, yet it undermines the long term sustainability of the field by supporting a sense of entitlement.
- eesmith 3y ago
  You are getting tangled up by the two different meaning of the word "free". Quoting 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. The four essential freedoms are: * The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    No, I am not tangled in it, I'm aware of it. I think you may be tangled in "free software" orthodoxy tho, and confused by it! :) Moreover, I am reflecting the confusion between free as in price-free and free as in restriction-free in the original comment. Ergo: "FS is about freedom" suggests restriction-free. "Not paying rent" suggests price-free. I am also suggesting the FS dogma is deceptive, and clouds the issue. You will do well to think more deeply of these things, instead of simply quoting from a FS site. Please go back and read my original comments to which you are replying. The meaning may be in there to set you free from this! :)
    - eesmith 3y ago
      FS dogma says you should charge as much as you want, in order to recoup the costs of developing free software. That Microsoft wants to turn freeholder software developers into sharecroppers doesn't affect what "free software" means.
      - keepamovin 3y ago
        Interesting, where does it say that? Also how does paying "rent for a spot in the marketplace" turn a freeholder into a sharecropper?
        eesmith 3y ago
        > Interesting, where does it say that? I thought you didn't want me quoting from a FS site. Quoting the high church of orthodoxy at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html "Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding." ... "Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price doesn't make the software free, or even closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it." I see you've complained thrice about people using the "'free software' orthodoxy", but if you don't know about this essay it sounds like you only know the heterodoxy. > "rent for a spot in the marketplace" As Apple and Microsoft make it harder and harder to enter the marketplace without paying rent (and in the name of security) it becomes harder and harder to make a living writing software without paying that rent.
- midasuni 3y ago
  Free means you are not imposing restrictions on me, and I am not imposing restrictions on you.
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    That's one way to look at it. But there are multiple paths. Best to not limit to one direction and pretend that's the only way. That's the trap of quoting "FS" orthodoxy, which only clouds judgement.

"Freedom for whom?" For the developers whose time they invested. For the users who are not "free" of their problems that prompt them to see these "free" solutions? Nothing about OSS is free. "Free" is a lie. Pernicious, in that it was passed off under the guise of some ideal, yet it undermines the long term sustainability of the field by supporting a sense of entitlement.

eesmith 3y ago
You are getting tangled up by the two different meaning of the word "free". Quoting 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. The four essential freedoms are: * The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  No, I am not tangled in it, I'm aware of it. I think you may be tangled in "free software" orthodoxy tho, and confused by it! :) Moreover, I am reflecting the confusion between free as in price-free and free as in restriction-free in the original comment. Ergo: "FS is about freedom" suggests restriction-free. "Not paying rent" suggests price-free. I am also suggesting the FS dogma is deceptive, and clouds the issue. You will do well to think more deeply of these things, instead of simply quoting from a FS site. Please go back and read my original comments to which you are replying. The meaning may be in there to set you free from this! :)
  - eesmith 3y ago
    FS dogma says you should charge as much as you want, in order to recoup the costs of developing free software. That Microsoft wants to turn freeholder software developers into sharecroppers doesn't affect what "free software" means.
    - keepamovin 3y ago
      Interesting, where does it say that? Also how does paying "rent for a spot in the marketplace" turn a freeholder into a sharecropper?
      - eesmith 3y ago
        > Interesting, where does it say that? I thought you didn't want me quoting from a FS site. Quoting the high church of orthodoxy at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html "Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding." ... "Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price doesn't make the software free, or even closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it." I see you've complained thrice about people using the "'free software' orthodoxy", but if you don't know about this essay it sounds like you only know the heterodoxy. > "rent for a spot in the marketplace" As Apple and Microsoft make it harder and harder to enter the marketplace without paying rent (and in the name of security) it becomes harder and harder to make a living writing software without paying that rent.
midasuni 3y ago
Free means you are not imposing restrictions on me, and I am not imposing restrictions on you.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  That's one way to look at it. But there are multiple paths. Best to not limit to one direction and pretend that's the only way. That's the trap of quoting "FS" orthodoxy, which only clouds judgement.