Free? Free as in Beer??

[ghandi69_]

I have a question. Many people here use different terms of free, like "Free as in Beer", or "Free as in something else"...

What exactly are you guys saying when you use these phrases... they seem pretty common, I hear it used outside of even the open source community, but I just have never asked.

Until now.

[earobinson]

Free as in beer implys free as in cost. Eg if ubuntu is free as in beer because it has no cost.

The other free is free as in speach (usualy implys free as in beer) Ubuntu is also free as in speach because you are free to do whatever you want with the code.

Redhat is free as in speach (you can do what you want with the code) But not free as in beer (it costs money)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_Libre#Free_as_in_beer_versus_free_as _in_speech

[forrestcupp]

It should be "Free as in free beer," but people are too lazy to put the other "free" in there. It's just to distinguish the difference between freeware (closed source software that doesn't cost anything), and free open source software (FOSS) sometimes called free/libre or "free as in speech." FOSS is usually free in cost + you are free to view and change the code as long as you follow the license restrictions.

[Mateo]

it would be a lot simpler just to say "free" (as in no cost) and "open source" (as in open source). but open source zealots insist on ownership of the word free so they have to use it interchangeably with open source. All open source is, by definition, free, so adding the free is redundant. It's added for fundamentalist reasons.

[forrestcupp]

it would be a lot simpler just to say "free" (as in no cost) and "open source" (as in open source). but open source zealots insist on ownership of the word free so they have to use it interchangeably with open source. All open source is, by definition, free, so adding the free is redundant. It's added for fundamentalist reasons.

That's true for people like you and me who don't care. But there is a vicious difference between the Free Software movement from the FSF and the Open Source movement. That's why people make the distinction.

[Mateo]

They don't make the distinction. They use "free" to mean both. If they just used "free" to mean no cost and "open source" to mean open source, there would be no problem. They use free to mean both because of philosophical fundamentalism.

[carlosqueso]

Also, like an earlier poster pointed out....some open-source/free speech software is not cost-free/free speech. I'm thinking of linux distros that charge for updated versions and such.

[Mateo]

if they charge money then, by definition, they are not open source.

[Adamant1988]

it would be a lot simpler just to say "free" (as in no cost) and "open source" (as in open source). but open source zealots insist on ownership of the word free so they have to use it interchangeably with open source. All open source is, by definition, free, so adding the free is redundant. It's added for fundamentalist reasons.

'Open Source' zealots do NOT (and never have) demanded use of the word 'Free' when referring to open source software. 'Free Software' zealots like RMS, etc. are the ones who demand you refer to free software as 'free software'.

Open Source and Free software are two different ideals entirely, but they're easily confused. Open Source is a development style, while Free Software is a social movement. Yes, Free Software and Open Source are related because (in most instances) the same license is used for both of them, which again adds to the confusion.

So, in practice, all Free Software is technically open source (to the extent that the source code is available), but the reverse is certainly not true. For instance, the BSD license is an open source license, but it is most certainly not a 'free software' license. Again, I understand how you could get these two confused, Mateo, but they are NOT the same thing and trying to tell people such is misguided and wrong.

If you need an example of this, RMS becomes aggravated (and will promptly correct you) if you ask him about his involvement in 'open source' software. He's been known to refuse interviews to people who refuse to use the proper titles.

So, again, Free Software is always open source software to the extent that the source code is available, but it goes a step further. 'Open Source' software is just, well, open source not need for warm and fuzzy ideals.


if they charge money then, by definition, they are not open source.

This is so incorrect that it isn't funny. You can even buy 'Free Software' straight from the FSF, and it's expensive too. All software can be sold, even 'Free Software' (as in speech) and 'Open Source' software. Now, Selling either of these becomes difficult with the availability of the source code freely and publicly, but it is still perfectly fine to sell this software. Red Hat manages to do this with a good twist on trademark law to protect it's product to the extent that you CANNOT get Red Hat Linux except through them, but you can get Linux that is exactly the same from someone else (like CENT OS).


Having had to correct two consecutive posts of yours, I am going to suggest that you start reading a bit before you decide you're 'in the know', as it were.

[earobinson]

'Open Source' zealots do NOT (and never have) demanded use of the word 'Free' when referring to open source software. 'Free Software' zealots like RMS, etc. are the ones who demand you refer to free software as 'free software'.

Open Source and Free software are two different ideals entirely, but they're easily confused. Open Source is a development style, while Free Software is a social movement. Yes, Free Software and Open Source are related because (in most instances) the same license is used for both of them, which again adds to the confusion.

So, in practice, all Free Software is technically open source (to the extent that the source code is available), but the reverse is certainly not true. For instance, the BSD license is an open source license, but it is most certainly not a 'free software' license. Again, I understand how you could get these two confused, Mateo, but they are NOT the same thing and trying to tell people such is misguided and wrong.

If you need an example of this, RMS becomes aggravated (and will promptly correct you) if you ask him about his involvement in 'open source' software. He's been known to refuse interviews to people who refuse to use the proper titles.

So, again, Free Software is always open source software to the extent that the source code is available, but it goes a step further. 'Open Source' software is just, well, open source not need for warm and fuzzy ideals.



This is so incorrect that it isn't funny. You can even buy 'Free Software' straight from the FSF, and it's expensive too. All software can be sold, even 'Free Software' (as in speech) and 'Open Source' software. Now, Selling either of these becomes difficult with the availability of the source code freely and publicly, but it is still perfectly fine to sell this software. Red Hat manages to do this with a good twist on trademark law to protect it's product to the extent that you CANNOT get Red Hat Linux except through them, but you can get Linux that is exactly the same from someone else (like CENT OS).


Having had to correct two consecutive posts of yours, I am going to suggest that you start reading a bit before you decide you're 'in the know', as it were.
Yuo You got it right!

[Nonno Bassotto]

Anyway, just to make the point clear. The problem stems from the fact that "free" has two meanings in english.

1) Something that has no cost. A tipical example is "today we open our new shop and offer free beer for everyone". We refer to this as free as in "free beer". In italian this becomes "gratis".

2) Something that has/gives some freedom. An example would be "the consitution grants everyone free speech". We refer to this as free as in "free speech". In italian this becomes "libero".

Usually you distinguish from the context, but since both adjectives can apply to software, you make the distinction. Some people refer to the first meaning by "free as beer", and then other people wonder what does this mean, since beer isn't usually free.