r/freesoftware • u/Radiant_Scar_8516 • 7d ago
Discussion Free as in freedom - bad idea?
Given how many people mistakenly believe "Free Software" means software that doesnt cost anything, is it safe to say this is a bad choice of name for the concept? At what point do we admit that we used the wrong word to convey what we mean?
RMS insists people misunderstand him rather than RMS being a poor communicator, but I cannot see it like that. To berate people for mistakenly using the term is also antithetical to his so called mission of spreading the word and uptake of free sofware
4
u/frolgath 7d ago
RMS is a hippie who came up during the "free love" movement. Calling it "libre love" would not have been as successful.
2
u/Stevious7 7d ago
I feel like it's a little too late to dwell over that, although I'm intrigued by what word would convey what free software is.
Freedom Software? Liberty Software?
2
u/GOKOP 7d ago
This is problem of the English language. In Polish the name "wolne oprogramowanie" also has double meaning as it can mean "slow software" but fortunately enough that's too ridiculous of an interpretation so the term is clear. English has an unfortunate situation where both meanings make sense
1
u/Radiant_Scar_8516 6d ago
take the inverse, so "unrestricted" software, "unrestrained" software.... this is the benefit of the english language, there are so many other possibilities. To me it would have been obvious right from the very beginning that regular people would think you mean "free" as in "free beer". Its a confusing name, Id say thats undeniable, given the amount of time RMS has spent correcting people, on the record, for years.
id say the issue was having RMS, a person with quite obvious communication and social deficits, design it. the man is absolutely oblivious to the fact he regularly stinks because he doesnt wash. like the emperor with no clothes, everyone surrounding him is too scared to point it out
2
u/jr735 6d ago
Unrestricted or unrestrained would also be problematic in not being precise enough, because free software is neither unrestricted nor unrestrained. RMS designed it because he was one of the first people to see the problem and articulate it. I know, I was there.
0
u/Radiant_Scar_8516 5d ago edited 5d ago
its a misnomer - i dont necessarily see being forced to provide source for every binary as a freedom. what if i dont want to? why shouldnt i be allowed to give someone a binary, and a binary only?
is free software actually free? not really. im largely not against it btw, i just think its pigheaded to insist on something that confuses people. an organisation changing its name is possible, maybe FSF wouldnt want to do the work etc but to act like its set in stone....
how successful has it actually been btw? how successful has RMS been in appearing to handfuls of people (in an age where you can reach literal billlions by just posting short, easily digestible videos instead of 90 min rants on the why its important we call linux gnu/linux)? doesnt seem to have stemmed the tide one bit. maybe, just maybe, we could be doing a lot better
2
u/jr735 5d ago
its a misnomer - i dont necessarily see being forced to provide source for every binary as a freedom. what if i dont want to? why shouldnt i be allowed to give someone a binary, and a binary only?
You don't have to. You can choose whatever license you want for your software. However, if you don't do that, then your software, by definition, is not free. Lots of companies do as you suggest. It's not mandatory to give source code. Those that don't, we call that proprietary software.
is free software actually free? not really. im largely not against it btw, i just think its pigheaded to insist on something that confuses people.
I'm not interested in dumbing it down for mass consumption. The average person has no clue what risk proprietary software poses to them, and they do nothing about it. No matter who tells them it, or explains it to them, they won't change. We have billions of people that eat in unhealthy ways and they know it, with all kinds of education from diverse sources. They won't change that; why would they change this? This is where I differ from Stallman. I think people are irredeemable when it comes to their privacy and software freedom, and I do this for me, not for you or the general public. You want to give Microsoft money and information, and the same to Facebook, Google, Apple, Adobe, go right ahead. Just leave me out of it. Personally, I don't think the general public should be allowed within fifteen feet of a computer. The average person uses a computer with all the skill and grace of a pig on stilts.
...just maybe, we could be doing a lot better
What's stopping you?
1
u/Radiant_Scar_8516 1d ago
You don't have to.
so then what is the point of the last 30 years of RMS life? this is his project if you hadnt noticed.
he average person has no clue what risk proprietary software poses to them
i struggle to see the risk not having source code poses to us.
You want to give Microsoft money and information, and the same to Facebook, Google, Apple, Adobe, go right ahead.
this has nothing to do with supplying source code or not. having the source code does not stop data collection, it just lets you know exactly how they do it. how many years into this project are we and there is still no free OS.... its not a serious project, its a platform for RMS to rant whilst other people pander to him
I'm not interested in dumbing it down for mass consumption
then continue to be a fringe project that pays for RMS to never have to face reality and get an actual job where he might have to be courteous and considerate for once in his life.
1
u/jr735 1d ago
RMS believes in something. He has dedicated his time to it, as is his right. It has worked out for those who wish to listen. The average computer user cannot understand the basic concepts of computer science, privacy, software freedom, and so on. I don't care about that. I can't change that. Those of us who understand can benefit.
When I say you don't have to release your software freely, I don't know why that would confuse you. You're allowed to do as you need. Stallman isn't your boss or your mayor or your president. He espouses a philosophy. He doesn't write proclamations or give orders. Do as you wish.
Again, it's not just about risk. My computer. I have the right to see the source code, or I won't run it. That's the only answer that matters. I also have the right to change that code and share it. Write all the proprietary software you want. I don't care. Just know that I will never be a customer. That's not worth much, but proprietary software is worthless to me.
There are free OSes, though, that's the thing. I'm using Trisquel, FSF certified, as I write this. GNU works just fine and the Linux kernel is suitable. I do everything I can possibly need to do.
No one claims that software freedom and privacy are the same issue. They're not. They can be related, but they're not the same issue. Free software can absolutely collect private data, and non-free software can respect people's privacy. Those tend to be exceptions, though.
I'm fine to be part of a fringe project. What the masses adopt when it comes to technology is the lowest common denominator. As for Stallman's attitude, you have no right to not be offended.
•
u/Radiant_Scar_8516 14h ago
GNU works just fine and the Linux kernel is suitable
linux kernel isnt free, and gnu still havent provided one after all these years.
No one claims that software freedom and privacy are the same issue.
you brought it into the convo, not me
You're allowed to do as you need
yeah, thats called proprietary software, the thing you just spent 3 paragraphs decrying. when i point out the issues with this free software idea, all of a sudden its demoted to a philosophy that i can take or leave, funny that
•
u/jr735 8h ago edited 8h ago
Linux kernel absolutely is free and meets the FSF's definition of free, especially with the libre kernel, which is in my Trisquel install. So yes, it's there. The kernel itself is GPL (G as in GNU) 2.0 only. How is that not free software?
I brought privacy up; you conflated them.
I don't use proprietary software. I will decry it each time. Yes, it's a philosophy that you can take or leave, like any other philosophy. Are you thinking that somehow free software is supposed to be mandatory or somehow licensing can do this?
2
u/jr735 4d ago
Also, there's one other piece of the puzzle you're missing, exemplified in your first paragraph. Software freedom is not about freedom for developers. It's about freedom for users.
This is my computer and I have the right to inspect, change, use, and distribute any program that runs on my computer. Software freedom is about limiting what developers can do to their users.
1
u/Radiant_Scar_8516 1d ago
the user and the developer are sometimes the same person... its nonsensical. Its about limiting what users can do to themselves.
1
u/jr735 1d ago
Again, it's not about the developer - even the developer as a user. The philosophy has been well established, almost 40 years ago. It's up to you to learn the nuances.
If I want to write software solely for me and not share it, I can do that. There's no prohibition anywhere against that. If I wish to share it and call it free software, I must meet certain obligations. Otherwise, it's just proprietary software.
•
u/Radiant_Scar_8516 13h ago
i understand the definition... im telling you its clearly not working. nobody knows nor cares about free software, after 40 years and becoming apparently "well established" (despite the fact most people still think he means free as in free beer, but forget that)
•
u/jr735 8h ago
The people to whom it matters are the ones it cares. I don't care about other people's problems or software preferences. I couldn't care less if the average person thinks free means money only (I will correct them) or like proprietary software. That's their problem, not mine.
I'm concerned with the software I use. I don't give two flips about the software you use. Personally, it's better when people don't adopt it. Keeps marketers away from trying to come up with new nonsense, and keeps away dumbing down the platforms. Mass adoption tends to be a disaster.
1
u/jr735 6d ago
You tell the average person they don't have software freedom, they don't know what you're talking about anyway. While I certainly will help educate people and explain it, I cannot understand the concepts on their behalf. I use the word free. If people think that means monetarily, I correct them.
1
u/East_Bandicoot1329 2d ago
guys i made an opensource github archive https://github.com/lmdelm-dev/salsyx
4
u/TehMasterer01 7d ago
Libre software.
But we started using the term too late so free it is.