PDA

View Full Version : How annoyed do you get when software vendors label non-free software free?



Dustin2128
August 17th, 2010, 11:24 AM
I'm talking about when a software company or individual coder releases a piece of closed source, non free software for free (price), and labels it free software. Its always annoying to me, and I bet the FSF hates it.

Tibuda
August 17th, 2010, 11:42 AM
It IS free.

theraje
August 17th, 2010, 11:46 AM
It doesn't bother me in the least. It's not as though it's false marketing just because we have differing ideas on what's free and what isn't.

Most consumers still don't get the distinction between free (beer) and free (speech) - they tend to think in the free (beer) mindset. So, in a way, they're merely catering to their consumers.

Maybe free (speech) software should classify itself as "Software Liberated". It has a more specific meaning, and it sounds cooler, too. :P

Tibuda
August 17th, 2010, 11:48 AM
Maybe free (speech) software should classify itself as "Software Liberated". It has a more specific meaning, and it sounds cooler, too. :P

or just "open source". but rms does not like that.

Dustin2128
August 17th, 2010, 12:09 PM
Maybe free (speech) software should classify itself as "Software Liberated". It has a more specific meaning, and it sounds cooler, too. :P
It does sound cooler...

It IS free.
free as in free speech, not free beer.

NCLI
August 17th, 2010, 12:24 PM
It doesn't bother me in the least. I really think we should stop using the word "free" to describe software that is free as in speech. Libre or just Open would be much better.

slackthumbz
August 17th, 2010, 12:28 PM
The usage of the word 'free' here is just a semantic game. Let them call it what they want. We know what they mean.

</thread>

Tibuda
August 17th, 2010, 12:28 PM
free as in free speech, not free beer.

but those software vendors don't label it "free as speech", only "free".

Dustin2128
August 17th, 2010, 12:30 PM
but those software vendors don't label it "free as speech", only "free".
true enough.

forrestcupp
August 17th, 2010, 12:49 PM
Most people in the world don't have a clue about the FSF's definition of Free Software. To almost everyone in the world, free usually means free of charge.

What you're saying is almost like being mad because someone goes to Steak 'n Shake and orders a hamburger.

clanky
August 17th, 2010, 12:53 PM
I'm talking about when a software company or individual coder releases a piece of closed source, non free software for free (price), and labels it free software. Its always annoying to me, and I bet the FSF hates it.

Just because some extremist hippy has defined what software freedom means doesn't mean that the whole world has to follow that definition.

Penguin Guy
August 17th, 2010, 01:06 PM
If you mean the things that are "free" as such, but come with a bunch of advertisements asking you to get the paid version, then yes, they do annoy me. As for respectable free software like Flash (http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/), that doesn't annoy me in the slightest.


Just because some extremist hippy has defined what software freedom means doesn't mean that the whole world has to follow that definition.
+1: RS (http://www.google.com/#q=Richard+Stallman)

RiceMonster
August 17th, 2010, 01:09 PM
How annoyed do I get? Not even slightly.

Npl
August 17th, 2010, 01:20 PM
its just plain free, and not "free" as in FSF terms which need pages to explain all the restrictions that come with it... and has nothing to do with "free speech" unless you live in a world where you killed everyone else with a different opinion

sydbat
August 17th, 2010, 01:27 PM
its just plain free, and not "free" as in FSF terms which need pages to explain all the restrictions that come with it... and has nothing to do with "free speech" unless you live in a world where you killed everyone else with a different opinionI miss George Carlin.

Paul820
August 17th, 2010, 01:28 PM
If it's free and it works then what is the problem? Although i don't allow it access to the internet.[-X

benmoran
August 17th, 2010, 01:35 PM
Just because some extremist hippy has defined what software freedom means doesn't mean that the whole world has to follow that definition.

Except for the fact that he started the free software movement, so his definition does carry some weight. The creator gets to name it.

BTW, without Richard Stallman you wouldn't be using Linux today. Show some respect.

Npl
August 17th, 2010, 01:46 PM
Except for the fact that he started the free software movement, so his definition does carry some weight. The creator gets to name it.

BTW, without Richard Stallman you wouldn't be using Linux today. Show some respect.Perhaps he shouldnt have picked a word that already has a definition. I wouldnt have problem calling GPL software "stallmaned" or "stalled" like I have with calling it "free speech" or "free" (which seems to induce that everything else is "unfree") =)

KdotJ
August 17th, 2010, 02:02 PM
It doesn't bother me in the least. I really think we should stop using the word "free" to describe software that is free as in speech. Libre or just Open would be much better.

I agree, to the masses who have no idea about open-source detail, would have no idea what the hell was going on if the software box said "free as in beer, not speech".
I for one, didn't have much, or any conception about all the types of free regarding software before I cam into a linux community, especially the way the free's are named.... (beer,speech etc)

Tristam Green
August 17th, 2010, 02:21 PM
I just want to know where you people hang out that you're getting free beer all the time.

You talk of free beer, yet I doubt you've ever had any.

Zorgoth
August 17th, 2010, 02:25 PM
I don't care. If you do, I recommend that you visit your doctor.

Npl
August 17th, 2010, 02:33 PM
I just want to know where you people hang out that you're getting free beer all the time.Hah, Im not telling! On the other hand if you would get me some free beers...

conundrumx
August 17th, 2010, 02:43 PM
BTW, without Richard Stallman you wouldn't be using Linux today. Show some respect.

I'm not so sure. The Linux kernel has nothing to do with RMS, and vise versa. The kernel was started in 1991, GNU in 1983. During that 8 year span, the FSF was unable to write their own usable kernel. I think it is much more likely GNU is dependent on Linux.

In regards to "free as in speech" versus "free as in beer," I think it's a ridiculous debate. The common vernacular for products or services would have "free" always interpreted as "free as in beer." No other community has crawled so far up it's own *** as to try and redefine a word.

By the way, if you're a FSF zealot, the Ubuntu forums run on vBulletin, which is a closed source, commercial product. Have some chuckling with that irony.

Fri13
August 17th, 2010, 02:45 PM
Most people in the world don't have a clue about the FSF's definition of Free Software. To almost everyone in the world, free usually means free of charge.

What you're saying is almost like being mad because someone goes to Steak 'n Shake and orders a hamburger.

Usually? Not, it means free as charge or freedom. It depends from the context and environment.

sataris
August 17th, 2010, 02:51 PM
It IS free.


As in beer. At the end of the day, unless you are modding the source code is it such a big deal? I never understand what the huge fuss is.

Software is software unless you a.) Buy it or b.) hack it.

Fri13
August 17th, 2010, 03:25 PM
Except for the fact that he started the free software movement, so his definition does carry some weight. The creator gets to name it.

BTW, without Richard Stallman you wouldn't be using Linux today. Show some respect.

And without Unix RMS would not even started the GNU project.
Without Linux, GNU project would have got their HURD operating system up and run.
But without Linux, GNU project fame would have been much smaller because Linux is just so great and easily developed OS. And since Linux OS born in 1991, it has taken the place what is used to run all the other software, was it from GNU or non-GNU project. (This does not cut away the change that you could use other OS's as replacement to Linux, like FreeBSD, NetBSD or OpenBSD (or even Dragon Fly BSD*) what all are monolithic OS's like Linux).

It is just funny how RMS is stated as he invented the free (libre) software. As the fact is that software was free before RMS. Problem was just that the commercial usage went high and companies wanted to own the code at the time when RMS stepped to MIT. So only thing what RMS really invented, was the GPL what kept the code free as it was originally meant to be and it turned to be impossible get turned closed. And now GPL is very powerfull and great license about protecting the codes and its users freedom.

The software was in the beginning free, actually it was more like public domain. It was distributed among nerds from different universities and so on. But as we know, public domain is a "do what ever you want!" license and it does not maintain the codes freedom. That is the important thing in GPL, it protects and limits the possibilities to abuse and rip off the freedom. Some people say it is not freedom if you can't slave someone else. But what freedom is it when you are someones slave? So by just restricting the possibility that someone could step in and make you as a slave, is just protecting the freedom.

* Server-Client architecture and not Monolithic.

Fri13
August 17th, 2010, 03:42 PM
I'm not so sure. The Linux kernel has nothing to do with RMS, and vise versa. The kernel was started in 1991, GNU in 1983. During that 8 year span, the FSF was unable to write their own usable kernel.

At that time GNU was tried to get their HURD operating system working and they really had problems with the kernel. Their problem seems to be that they choosed the Server-Client architecture instead the monolithic for their OS. And the microkernel was very hard to get work (the coding is more difficult) and they turned to make a own fork of the Mach microkernel, named GNU Mach what runs in the HURD. Now they have changed GNU Mach to L4 microkernel. And still they do have problems to get HURD working so Linux is still the best choise for the OS when wanted to run GNU software.

In the time what Linux has got developed, HURD has been more like jammed to it old state, it is slowly getting improvement but work is just too slow as almost everyone is developing Linux someway. And the bad thing is as well, that if HURD would get more OS developers, GNU would get their own OS up and running and markets would be more richer in future when there would be even more free OS's to choose "than just" the Linux (not counting four BSD's and so on).


I think it is much more likely GNU is dependent on Linux.

Only when you run GNU software top of Linux (kernel) operating system.
But you can run GNU software as well with GNU's own HURD operating system. You can even use Minix, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and so on. GNU software is not dependent of the Linux OS (or vice versa). Only if you want to use it and at this time, the Linux's hardware support is so great that you want to use Linux OS if you want to get easily working system. Sometimes I test HURD OS but usually the problem is that you just dont have needed device drivers. Same thing is with Minix and so on. The basic functions are possible to get but special devices (printers, scanners and so on) can be impossible to get work.

But in long run, I think GNU can blame RMS that they lost even more OS developers when RMS started the "GNU/Linux" propaganda and OS developers could not stand the RMS's jealousy about Linux success. The first three years went fine until RMS started to have demands what did not base technology but believes and who was first etc.

Dustin2128
August 17th, 2010, 03:56 PM
But in long run, I think GNU can blame RMS that they lost even more OS developers when RMS started the "GNU/Linux" propaganda and OS developers could not stand the RMS's jealousy about Linux success. The first three years went fine until RMS started to have demands what did not base technology but believes and who was first etc.

Yes, I think I'd have to agree that rms is his project's worst enemy.

Ozor Mox
August 17th, 2010, 03:57 PM
In regards to "free as in speech" versus "free as in beer," I think it's a ridiculous debate. The common vernacular for products or services would have "free" always interpreted as "free as in beer." No other community has crawled so far up it's own *** as to try and redefine a word.

Wrong (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/free). There are lots of meanings to the word free, and have been since long before anyone tried to "redefine" it.


Software is software unless you a.) Buy it or b.) hack it.

I'd add c) Care about the data you give it and d) Care about what it is doing and why ... Oh and maybe e) Want to still be able to use it in the future without being forced to upgrade through lack of support for the old version. There are probably loads more...

conundrumx
August 17th, 2010, 04:07 PM
Wrong (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/free). There are lots of meanings to the word free, and have been since long before anyone tried to "redefine" it.

I'd add c) Care about the data you give it and d) Care about what it is doing and why ... Oh and maybe e) Want to still be able to use it in the future without being forced to upgrade through lack of support for the old version. There are probably loads more...

Of course there are lots of meanings for the word free, there are lots of meanings for a great deal of words. That's why I included "...common vernacular for products or services..." If someone told you that was a free pie sitting on the counter it would be insane for you to get mad if they wouldn't tell you the recipe. Software is (more often than not) a product, and as such the only definition of "free" a normal person will think of is cost.

As far as your argument about having source code available for software you give data to, have you read the source code for:


X11, and related input libs.
Your browser of choice
The Linux kernel
Your DE of choice


"Free as in speech," is a nice idea for software, but it's not necessary and there's no reason to get your panties in a bunch over it.


Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested. 99% of that I run tends to be open source, but that's my choice, dammit.

Me, I just don't care about proprietary software. It's not "evil" or "immoral," it just doesn't matter. I think that Open Source can do better, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is by working on Open Source, but it's not a crusade – it's just a superior way of working together and generating code.

Nick_Jinn
August 17th, 2010, 04:12 PM
I would just treat it as if it was free as in 'freedom' regardless of the agreement you have to click on.

Nick_Jinn
August 17th, 2010, 04:12 PM
Sorry. Double post.

Ozor Mox
August 17th, 2010, 04:21 PM
Of course there are lots of meanings for the word free, there are lots of meanings for a great deal of words. That's why I included "...common vernacular for products or services..." If someone told you that was a free pie sitting on the counter it would be insane for you to get mad if they wouldn't tell you the recipe. Software is (more often than not) a product, and as such the only definition of "free" a normal person will think of is cost.

Sorry, I did not read the "common vernacular for products or services" part. I thought you were implying that the free software community have somehow redefined the word for their benefit. I actually disagree with the OP, I've never seen software labelled as "free" and thought it was incorrect.


As far as your argument about having source code available for software you give data to, have you read the source code for:


X11, and related input libs.
Your browser of choice
The Linux kernel
Your DE of choice


"Free as in speech," is a nice idea for software, but it's not necessary and there's no reason to get your panties in a bunch over it.

No I have not read all the code for those projects, but I know that plenty of people can and do. I prefer open source software over proprietary where I have the choice. Where I don't have the choice, well that's fine, I use whatever works. That's basically my stance on the matter. Pretty similar to Torvalds actually by the sounds of it.

betrunkenaffe
August 17th, 2010, 04:26 PM
Not at all, because I didn't pay for it and it's their choice to release it however they want.

Amongst people I know:
Open Source: FSF and all "free as in speech" software
Free: Costs nothing to use software.

It's not that we decided on that together, it just makes more sense.

Ozor Mox
August 17th, 2010, 04:29 PM
Not at all, because I didn't pay for it and it's their choice to release it however they want.

Amongst people I know:
Open Source: FSF and all "free as in speech" software
Free: Costs nothing to use software.

It's not that we decided on that together, it just makes more sense.

There's also FOSS, which is a nice way to cover the free and open source definitions. I tend to prefer that to FLOSS, because the latter is also used to clean your teeth :)

conundrumx
August 17th, 2010, 04:36 PM
No I have not read all the code for those projects, but I know that plenty of people can and do. I prefer open source software over proprietary where I have the choice. Where I don't have the choice, well that's fine, I use whatever works. That's basically my stance on the matter. Pretty similar to Torvalds actually by the sounds of it.

Exactly the same, and in my opinion the correct way to approach it.

I use "F/OSS" most often now to refer to GPL or similarly licensed projects.

Mr. Picklesworth
August 17th, 2010, 04:58 PM
I don't mind at all. In most cases I'm grateful. (Exception for Telus's security software).

I think it's a powerful and important thing that the platforms we build software on (GNU / Linux / X11 / Gnome, the web) are free. It promotes a more sustainable environment free from lock-in and other ugly behaviour. The platform is supported for as long as people need it, so software that depends on it won't be suddenly shaken off. Competing operating systems in this space don't need to be (and generally aren't) incompatible with each other.
Healthy for users and developers alike.

Beyond that, I think it's fair game. That software which depends on our free platforms can be whatever it likes. For some cases, the "software as a community project" idea just doesn't work, so the creators prefer a bit more control over their work. That way they have more freedom to create a profit model that suits them, which later means they can dedicate lots of time to the software without starving to death.

Something like a game or a mapping application isn't going to hurt anything by being closed source. It isn't building a chain of dependencies; it isn't a disaster if it stops being supported. You aren't forced to use it and locked in by other software. There is nothing even remotely unfair or unethical.

LeifAndersen
August 17th, 2010, 05:08 PM
There's also FOSS, which is a nice way to cover the free and open source definitions. I tend to prefer that to FLOSS, because the latter is also used to clean your teeth :)

I actually prefer FLOSS for that exact reason. :D I actually remember back in my highschool days my class (I had several classes with the same group of kids) thought that I was referring to dental floss for several months, and couldn't understand why I cared about a piece of string so much. :)

FuturePilot
August 17th, 2010, 05:11 PM
Semantics.

tgm4883
August 17th, 2010, 05:21 PM
Perhaps he shouldnt have picked a word that already has a definition. I wouldnt have problem calling GPL software "stallmaned" or "stalled" like I have with calling it "free speech" or "free" (which seems to induce that everything else is "unfree") =)

I hardly think you can blame him for doing this. There are many words in the english language that have multiple meanings. free (cost/not confined), execute (kill a person/start a program), etc

I'd venture that when RMS picked free that he was choosing it because it means not confined, not because he wanted to add a new meaning to the word free.

Zoot7
August 17th, 2010, 08:55 PM
Couldn't care less.

earthpigg
August 17th, 2010, 09:17 PM
it would be nice if the FSF established a trademarked logo that could only be used after the FSF approves that a piece of software is Free.

the only problem, however, is that the FSF threshold is a lot higher than the threshold many of us have. Anyone ever heard RMS talk about which GNU/Linux distributions he considers to be Free Software? The list isn't very long (http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html).

here is the list of companies (http://www.gnu.org/links/companies.html) that meet with the FSF's approval regarding preinstalled GNU/Linux system sales. note that ZaReason and System76 are not listed.

until such time as users, the fsf, and the osi all get on the same page... this problem will not be resolved.

regarding this, however:


How annoyed do you get when software vendors label non-free software free?

I typically respond as such:


I believe you are mistaken. Such-and-such software may be some form of shareware or malware or freeware, but it is clearly not Free Software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition). Why would this company lie to it's users in their advertising?

I prefer the term Free Software (proper noun, hyperlink to the definition optional) to Open Source or FLOSS or Libre or Foss or any of the rest. That being said, if I see a discussion taking place wherein everyone is already using "FLOSS" or "Open Source" or "Software Libre", I will go with the flow and use whatever de facto standard term is already being locally used. I'm not going to walk into some community of successful GNU/Linux deployments to non-technical users and start exposing internal political divides within the movement.

Take the example of the American Revolution:
Wave the don't tread on me flag (Free Software).
Wave the stars and stripes (Open Source Software).
Wave the Grand Union Flag (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Grand_Union_Flag.svg) for all I care (FLOSS, Software Libre, etc).

As long as you're shooting redcoats, you're ok in my book.

(shooting redcoats would be equivalent to encouraging or using Free Software)


EDIT:
No offense to any of our British friends here, by the way. We can consider the British Empire to be Netscape/Mozilla, if we really want to take that awkward metaphor far enough. :D

KiwiNZ
August 17th, 2010, 10:12 PM
I'm talking about when a software company or individual coder releases a piece of closed source, non free software for free (price), and labels it free software. Its always annoying to me, and I bet the FSF hates it.

Whats that old saying ....... "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth"

Austin25
August 17th, 2010, 11:33 PM
Whats that old saying ....... "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth"
I don't think I have heard that saying; it sounds mixed up.

I do hate it, but I have never seen it.

KiwiNZ
August 17th, 2010, 11:37 PM
I don't think I have heard that saying; it sounds mixed up.

I do hate it, but I have never seen it.

Its an old English saying, meaning " Don't be ungrateful when you receive a gift. "

Austin25
August 17th, 2010, 11:40 PM
Its an old English saying, meaning " Don't be ungrateful when you receive a gift. "
Oh. I did get the meaning, but I never heard the saying before, although I may use it now.

bunburya
August 18th, 2010, 12:07 AM
The FSF doesn't have a monopoly on the word "free", and free meant gratis long before the FSF defined the term.

earthpigg
August 18th, 2010, 12:34 AM
The FSF doesn't have a monopoly on the word "free", and free meant gratis long before the FSF defined the term.

but they could gain a monopoly on a specific logo, which could be useful. i say 'could' because of the problems i outlined in my previous post.

bunburya
August 18th, 2010, 12:53 AM
but they could gain a monopoly on a specific logo, which could be useful. i say 'could' because of the problems i outlined in my previous post.
Yes but I'm talking about the word "free", not any logo--you can't trademark the word "free".

lisati
August 18th, 2010, 12:54 AM
Oh. I did get the meaning, but I never heard the saying before, although I may use it now.

I've heard the saying before. If memory serves correctly, it has its origins in assessing a horse's health by looking at, amongst other things, its teeth.

Tibuda
August 18th, 2010, 12:54 AM
but they could gain a monopoly on a specific logo, which could be useful. i say 'could' because of the problems i outlined in my previous post.
this is not their specific logo?
http://www.infohelp.co.nz/pix/heckert_gnu_left.png

Stancel
August 18th, 2010, 01:26 AM
If you put my annoyance level on a scale between 1 and 10, it would be -9001.

I really don't care...

The word free has different meanings, in that context it is free of charge.

Most people don't care about source code one bit. Give them a free program they'll be happy to try it (unless they're paranoid about viruses).

KiwiNZ
August 18th, 2010, 02:44 AM
Born free, as free as the wind blows
As free as the grass grows
Born free to follow your heart

Go down the Dark side
Never hide
And never ever fart

Now thats free

su-37
August 18th, 2010, 04:12 AM
More irked than annoyed truthfully. I think they should say the price is $0.00 but the licence still applies.

toupeiro
August 18th, 2010, 04:24 AM
Can't say I ever lost sleep over that.

earthpigg
August 18th, 2010, 05:09 AM
Born free, as free as the wind blows
As free as the grass grows
Born free to follow your heart

Go down the Dark side
Never hide
And never ever fart

Now thats free

whenever you do poetry, i assume that i'm going to scroll down a bit more and see that the thread has been closed.

no poetry, please, you made me furrow my eyebrows. i prefer the trolling.

Austin25
August 18th, 2010, 05:11 AM
whenever you do poetry, i assume that i'm going to scroll down a bit more and see that the thread has been closed.

No poetry, please, you made me furrow my eyebrows. I prefer the trolling.
+1

KiwiNZ
August 18th, 2010, 05:32 AM
whenever you do poetry, i assume that i'm going to scroll down a bit more and see that the thread has been closed.

no poetry, please, you made me furrow my eyebrows. i prefer the trolling.

The was a young man from Leads
Who swallowed a packet of seeds
A big blade of Grass

ooops can't do that here

earthpigg
August 18th, 2010, 06:17 AM
The was a young man from Leads
Who swallowed a packet of seeds
A big blade of Grass

ooops can't do that here

reported.

KiwiNZ
August 18th, 2010, 06:43 AM
reported.

Reported for not reporting it as really bad poetry :p

lisati
August 18th, 2010, 06:49 AM
With a few minor adjustments:

There was once was an old man from Leeds
Who swallowed a packet of seeds.
It soon came to pass
He was covered in grass
And couldn't sit down for the weeds.

murderslastcrow
August 18th, 2010, 06:52 AM
There's no way to get people to prefer the license meaning over the price meaning. For a long time in the modern world, especially the United States, free is so quickly applied to monetary transactions.

I really don't mind- so long as people are informed of what 'free software' is and why it's good from a humanistic and development point of view, I think that's good. And I think, no matter what Richard Stallman thinks, that calling it open source software (as everyone who distributes software online does- Commercial, Shareware, Freeware, Open Source) is the best way to introduce the true meaning of free as it pertains to this software.

It's all about semantics. It sure would be nice if for some crazy reason people just had the idea of freedom come to their mind before price, but they don't these days. You have to speak the language and avoid using jargon when explaining new concepts.

These are basic communication skills. I know it sucks, but you can't just stubbornly dig your heels into the ground and assume people should just know what you know and know why it's good. That's called biggotry.

So really, I think the term open source software is a plenty good compromise, and most developers themselves have agreed. Rather than insisting that people talk the way we want them to talk and alienating them, I suggest we merely help them in what ways we can, through our actions, and not merely talk down to them for calling freeware free software.

Nick_Jinn
August 18th, 2010, 07:21 AM
People dont value their freedom anymore. People have been reduced to consumers and they dont care that they are alienated from the technology that governs them, or that they dont have the right to create or interact with the things that govern their world without somebody elses permission. They are ok with the master slave relationship, or if they dont like it they dont know what an alternative would look like.

I am not much of a geek, but Linux has been a pretty inspirational model for me. I would like to become more skilled.

Tristam Green
August 18th, 2010, 01:00 PM
it would be nice if the FSF established a trademarked logo that could only be used after the FSF approves that a piece of software is Free.

I dunno, that sounds awfully proprietary, wouldn't you agree?


Also, here's my entry for bad poetry, by way of Interstellar Bypass:


O freddled gruntbuggly thy micturations are to me
As plured gabbleblochits on a lurgid bee.
Groop, I implore thee my foonting turlingdromes.
And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurlecruncheon, see if I donít.

bunburya
August 18th, 2010, 03:21 PM
People dont value their freedom anymore. People have been reduced to consumers and they dont care that they are alienated from the technology that governs them, or that they dont have the right to create or interact with the things that govern their world without somebody elses permission. They are ok with the master slave relationship, or if they dont like it they dont know what an alternative would look like.

I am not much of a geek, but Linux has been a pretty inspirational model for me. I would like to become more skilled.


This talk of how using MS makes you a "slave" is driving away less geeky users IMO. It's not exactly the Siberian gulag is it?

earthpigg
August 19th, 2010, 04:33 AM
I dunno, that sounds awfully proprietary, wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely not. The GPL itself is copyrighted & cannot be modified without permission.

And people will still be free to use whatever software they wish.

doorknob60
August 19th, 2010, 04:43 AM
That doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is software that says it's "free", and it actually turns out to be a free trial and wants you to by the full version in a certain number of days. Honestly it seems like most Windows software is like that, I'm glad I'm away from that now. It got bad enough that anytime I was trying to find a program to do something I need, I had to search 'freeware', not just 'free', or I'd always find a trial.

KiwiNZ
August 19th, 2010, 04:45 AM
I can't believe this discussion has reached page 7 .

There is another thread on this Forum where folks are getting animated that Oracle are taking Google to Court over a Patent infringement. Yet here we have on the same Forum folks getting animated that the Word "Free" should be locked down and only used by one group of people.

Oh the irony.

Please I do not want price labels to read

"This software carries no Fiscal transfer encumbrances from the Buyers Bank account
to the Sellers bank account and or buyers cash repository to the sellers cash
repository.And carries no future or deferred encumbrances or implied as same".

kamaboko
August 19th, 2010, 08:05 AM
I lose sleep over it. I mean, I haven't slept since 1981 when I got burned over 'free' software.

lisati
August 19th, 2010, 08:10 AM
One thing that really annoys me is when I find something on a website that's "free", and then when I'm through filling out the form, the website starts asking for my credit card details. That kind of situation smells of either false advertising or a scam.

Also, here's my entry for bad poetry, by way of Interstellar Bypass:
10-10-10 :D

Grenage
August 19th, 2010, 08:31 AM
I've heard the saying before. If memory serves correctly, it has its origins in assessing a horse's health by looking at, amongst other things, its teeth.

I believe that the teeth were inspected, in order to gauge the horse's age.

As for the opening question: No, I couldn't care less. Most of the world uses 'free' in its fiscal sense when applied to a product, and so do I.

Nick_Jinn
August 19th, 2010, 07:53 PM
I just want to know where you people hang out that you're getting free beer all the time.

You talk of free beer, yet I doubt you've ever had any.

Sure I have, among other things.

KiwiNZ
August 19th, 2010, 09:06 PM
it would be nice if the FSF established a trademarked logo that could only be used after the FSF approves that a piece of software is Free.

the only problem, however, is that the FSF threshold is a lot higher than the threshold many of us have. Anyone ever heard RMS talk about which GNU/Linux distributions he considers to be Free Software? The list isn't very long (http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html).

here is the list of companies (http://www.gnu.org/links/companies.html) that meet with the FSF's approval regarding preinstalled GNU/Linux system sales. note that ZaReason and System76 are not listed.

until such time as users, the fsf, and the osi all get on the same page... this problem will not be resolved.

regarding this, however:



I typically respond as such:



I prefer the term Free Software (proper noun, hyperlink to the definition optional) to Open Source or FLOSS or Libre or Foss or any of the rest. That being said, if I see a discussion taking place wherein everyone is already using "FLOSS" or "Open Source" or "Software Libre", I will go with the flow and use whatever de facto standard term is already being locally used. I'm not going to walk into some community of successful GNU/Linux deployments to non-technical users and start exposing internal political divides within the movement.

Take the example of the American Revolution:
Wave the don't tread on me flag (Free Software).
Wave the stars and stripes (Open Source Software).
Wave the Grand Union Flag (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Grand_Union_Flag.svg) for all I care (FLOSS, Software Libre, etc).

As long as you're shooting redcoats, you're ok in my book.

(shooting redcoats would be equivalent to encouraging or using Free Software)


EDIT:
No offense to any of our British friends here, by the way. We can consider the British Empire to be Netscape/Mozilla, if we really want to take that awkward metaphor far enough. :D


So what you are saying is the FSF will own Free and Stallman will guard it.

RMS will make you *cough* TOE the line. ;)

And tell you to JAM IT if you don't :p

Oh man thats bad

sataris
August 19th, 2010, 09:13 PM
so what you are saying is the fsf will own free and stallman will guard it.

Rms will make you *cough* toe the line. ;)

and tell you to jam it if you don't :p

oh man thats bad

just
pure
win

forrestcupp
August 21st, 2010, 03:48 PM
Usually? Not, it means free as charge or freedom. It depends from the context and environment.

You're right. But my main point was that most computer users in the world have never even heard of RMS's definition of software freedom, and they've never even heard of RMS. And if "free" is something that has already been defined for hundreds or thousands of years, why should they be held to some redefinition from some obscure guy that nobody even knows about?

Right now, I'm officially redefining the word "violet" to mean "in a good mood." Blue means depressed, and yellow means scared. So now violet means to be in a good mood, and I'll be mad if everyone in the world doesn't mean that every time they say the word violet.

MadCookie
August 21st, 2010, 03:59 PM
When it says "Free download" instead of "Download" I always wonder if there is a paid version...that annoys me!

Primefalcon
August 21st, 2010, 04:08 PM
free doesn't automatically equal open source, no I dont have a problem with this at all

dragos240
August 21st, 2010, 04:19 PM
This is how I feel being a free software fanatic:
"Now I'm really pissed off."

It really does tick me off. Free software != Freeware.

Ctrl-Alt-F1
August 21st, 2010, 10:32 PM
free doesn't automatically equal open source, no I dont have a problem with this at all

Likewise.

Although I do like the "Software Liberated" thing someone mentioned earlier. That is catchy! ;)

MasterNetra
August 22nd, 2010, 01:29 AM
or just "open source". but rms does not like that.

We should care about rms's naming preferences because...?


Likewise.

Although I do like the "Software Liberated" thing someone mentioned earlier. That is catchy! ;)

Or more accurately, "Liberated Software". hmm Liberware.

Tibuda
August 22nd, 2010, 01:31 AM
We should care about rms's naming preferences because...?

we should not care. but some people do.

Dustin2128
August 22nd, 2010, 01:36 AM
the liberated title is starting to catch on, FLOSS= Free/Libre open source software. I think that's what I'm going to be calling all my software from now on.

phrostbyte
August 22nd, 2010, 01:50 AM
The correct terminology is "free of charge". :) Using "free" to mean "free of charge" is an obvious idiom, but that's how the English language evolves.

u no wat I meen?

LinuxFox
August 22nd, 2010, 01:52 AM
Personally I just call free (as in price) software freeware. Since the term usually mean closed source software available for free. I thought free software meant price at first, but doing research and reading around I learned it means freedom. ;)

I also use the term open source as well, but that's just me.

The Thunder Chimp
August 22nd, 2010, 01:56 AM
You have to check out this link.

http://www.freerip.com/buynow.php

It's hilarious, they actually say: Buy FreeRIP Pro Now! Even the preceding URL is funny.

If you download the trial you will realize that "Free" in the name refers to the fact that the program "frees" discs of their music. What a scam.

forrestcupp
August 22nd, 2010, 02:16 AM
If you download the trial you will realize that "Free" in the name refers to the fact that the program "frees" discs of their music. What a scam.

You mean what a rip. :D

Nick_Jinn
August 22nd, 2010, 02:43 AM
How do you prove fiscal damages if closed source freeware is manipulated against the creators will?

Shining Arcanine
August 22nd, 2010, 02:46 AM
I'm talking about when a software company or individual coder releases a piece of closed source, non free software for free (price), and labels it free software. Its always annoying to me, and I bet the FSF hates it.

That is free software.

phrostbyte
August 22nd, 2010, 04:11 AM
How do you prove fiscal damages if closed source freeware is manipulated against the creators will?

You don't need to - statuary damages.