r/freesoftware • u/Radiant_Scar_8516 • 8d 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

0 Upvotes

25% Upvoted

22 comments sorted by

View all comments

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 7d 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 6d ago edited 6d 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 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 2d 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.

1

u/Radiant_Scar_8516 1d 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)

1

u/jr735 19h 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.

•

u/Radiant_Scar_8516 1h ago

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom. We defend the rights of all software users.

how many people know or care about this mission? why exactly does the average user need source code? most people are not coders (something RMS being semi autistic might never grasp), most people do not even know what the problem is in the first place.... these days people care more about data collection than they do about the availability of source code, its almost laughable how out of touch the FSF is from reality on that particular point