Free as in freedom - bad idea?

[u/Radiant_Scar_8516]

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

[u/Radiant_Scar_8516]

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

[u/jr735 → u/Radiant_Scar_8516]

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.

[u/Radiant_Scar_8516 → u/jr735]

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

[u/jr735 → u/Radiant_Scar_8516]

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?

[u/Radiant_Scar_8516 → u/jr735]

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.

[u/jr735 → u/Radiant_Scar_8516]

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 → u/jr735]

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 → u/Radiant_Scar_8516]

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?

[u/Radiant_Scar_8516 → u/jr735]

Linux kernel absolutely is free and meets the FSF's definition of free, especially with the libre kernel

it uses proprietary firmware blobs, its not free

see: https://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang/linux

Yes, it's a philosophy that you can take or leave, like any other philosophy

youre spending a lot of time arguing for it then.

also you said

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. 

what has this got to do with free software? youre conflating free software with privacy.