Free vs. Captive Software

[arkanabar]

Enough people are confused by the term "Free software" that, in an effort to clear up the confusion, free software advocates like to use two terms: "free as free speech" and "free as free beer." But then they go on to say that the real problem with software that is not "free as free speech" is that they cannot use and control it as they wish, except within the constraints of the end-user license agreement. So the opposite of "free software" is not "paid software" or "non-free software" (a clunky term if ever there was one) but captive software. It's easy to explain, too:

"Free software means software you are free to use, change, control, and distribute as you like. Captive software means that use, control, change, and sharing or distribution of the software is held captive by the publishers, who often try to lock you in to using their captive formats."

With that exlpanation, we can call Internet Explorer and Adobe reader "captive freeware" instead of "freely downloadable non-free software" or something else absurdly self-contradictory. And explaining to someone that captive software tries to lock their data into captive formats should put the here-and-now reasons for using free software front and center in their minds.

"Proprietary freeware" is even less self-contradictory, and almost as easy to explain ("Proprietary means software that, no matter what, belongs to and is controlled by the publisher. No matter why they let you use it, it is still theirs") but not as euphonious. Also, "proprietary" doesn't have the negative connotations that "captive" does, or the obvious connection to vendor lock-in. After all, premium consumables and services such as Coca-Cola use proprietary blends and processes and people pay more for them.

Also, "free as free speech" doesn't really ring true, for me. I'll admit that software is an art form. But it's also property. Explaining the GPL to a libertarian should be dead easy: "End user license agreements keep all property rights in the software firmly in the hands of the publisher. Free software licenses give you a property right to your software. Which do you think is better for you?"

edit: So what do y'all think?

[Bachstelze]

You misunderstand a couple things :




"Free software means software you are free to use, change, control, and distribute as you like. Captive software means that use, control, change, and sharing or distribution of the software is held captive by the publishers, who often try to lock you in to using their captive formats."

False. Unless it is placed in the public domain, you are not free to distribute it as you like. For example in the case of the GPL you are not free to distribute it binary-only. The difference between "free" and "non-free" software is one of degree (and even different people will have different ideas of what "free" means). In the most common case of the FSF and GNU project, a softare is said to be "free" if it grants four, well-defined, freedoms. This is not the same as saying "you can do as you like" (although that exists too (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/)).


("Proprietary means software that, no matter what, belongs to and is controlled by the publisher. No matter why they let you use it, it is still theirs")

This is true of all software (again, unless it is in the public domain). The author (or other copyright owner) still retains all the rights on their software. This is why some people object to the term "proprietary" as an antonym of "free" software : it gives the impression that if you release your software as free software, you do not own it anymore. This is false.



Also, "free as free speech" doesn't really ring true, for me. I'll admit that software is an art form. But it's also property. Explaining the GPL to a libertarian should be dead easy: "End user license agreements keep all property rights in the software firmly in the hands of the publisher. Free software licenses give you a property right to your software. Which do you think is better for you?"

Free software does not give you any kind of "property right".

[houseworkshy]

The word 'free' is ambiguous if one looks at dictionary definitions. Perhaps unlocked, as in unlocked code, would be better one could then have "free unlocked", "free locked", "proprietrary locked" and occasionally "proprietary unlocked".
One could also use terms like partially unlocked for software where most of the code shouldn't be touched whilst some dabbling is encouraged, for example mods for proprietry games. This would also fit with the word "jailbreaking" which is when people break into software which they shouldn't.
The trouble with language is that it evolves words when the words are needed, with a few years hindsight a lot of those words and terms have better alternatives. It also changes all the time. The word "fool", for example, has been round the polarities of intellegence, from very clever to very stupid several times over the centuries. In years to come this post may have to be deleted because one of the words or phrases in it has become offensively rude.