| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Richard Stallman was rightRichard Stallman was rightPosted Nov 30, 2006 3:20 UTC (Thu) by wookey (subscriber, #5501)In reply to: Richard Stallman was right by ldo Parent article: What is open source?
I think you are right, however there are greats swaths of people out there who know what 'open source' is, but aren't familiar with the term 'free software'. We've largely lost that debate in the corporate millieu. Hopefully that can be turned around in the long term, but there is a huge amount of work to do on that front. And of course 'free software' opens us up to a whole load of different misconceptions from the great unwashed, who fail to distinguish it from freeware.
Tricky stuff language.
(Log in to post comments)
Richard Stallman was right Posted Nov 30, 2006 7:58 UTC (Thu) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link] I'm not sure there are huge swathes out there who know what 'open source' is. I've seen a _lot_ of people use it as a term to mean that the source is visible, but still potentially proprietary or somehow horribly encumbered. Like, even LWN commenters:http://lwn.net/Articles/208603/
For all of ESR's old rants about how easily the 'free software' term could be misinterpreted, 'open source' seems to be the one that really damages us in practice. I guess all the compulsive parenthesizing everyone always does with "free (as in speech)" has paid off -- maybe we need something like that for 'open source'.
I dunno what that would even be, though. 'open (as in free)'? :-)
"Free software" is still a bad term - it's completely misunderstood by the public Posted Nov 30, 2006 17:20 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] The term "Free software" is well-understood by the general public. It means "I don't have to pay to get a copy".That is NOT what the Free Software Foundation means, and I know it well. But this continued use of a term that has a pre-existing, unrelated meaning is NOT helpful. The explanation that "it's about freedom" doesn't help, because people already think they know what it means.... they don't even ask the question. Any conversion that has to start by UNDEFINING a well-understood phrase is unlikely to go well. I wish that they'd use the term "Libre software", or at least "Freed software". Many people use the term "Open source software" even if they agree with Stallman's position, simply because "Free software" is comfusing. Companies pay millions for creating a clear brand. The FSF has failed to create a clear, unambiguous brand name for the idea that it is selling, and continues to pay a price for it. All would be better if they'd finally agree on, and start using, a term that is actually clear and unambiguous.
"Free software" is still a bad term - it's completely misunderstood by the public Posted Dec 1, 2006 5:35 UTC (Fri) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] I don't think the FSF would have any problem if everyone used the term "Libre software" the problem is you can't force people to use the term they need to do it on their own. It's just like you can't force people to think 'open source" means what OSI wants it to mean. RMS had stated that he understands the problem, but the implications of people thinking that open source is any software that in some way has viewable source, is far worse than people thinking that Free Software means no cost.
freedom software Posted Dec 2, 2006 1:49 UTC (Sat) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link] How about freedom software? It's just different enough from "free software" to either avoid the emphasis on zero cost or to spark a question about the term itself. In the U.S., at least, the term calls up images that match several aspects of free software -- personal freedom, individual efforts combined into a community working toward common goals, and licensing that restricts only that which is necessary for maintaining equal freedom for users of the software.
freedom software Posted Dec 7, 2006 10:11 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] Exactly. I've been using the term "freedomware", an obvious and equallyunambiguous shorter form of "freedom software" in my own writing for some time -- since "libre software" aka "libreware" first hit the spotlight. It's especially effective (and controversial, but it does get the point across) when used in combination with "slaveryware".
My newsgroup and mailinglist signature is an RMS quote that reinforces and
--
freedom software Posted Dec 7, 2006 10:43 UTC (Thu) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link] I don't know, but that's far too reminiscent of "freedom fries" for me.
"Free software" is still a bad term - it's completely misunderstood by the public Posted Dec 3, 2006 20:34 UTC (Sun) by dirtyepic (subscriber, #30178) [Link] Because "libre" doesn't mean anything to anyone who speaks English, and I actually misread Freed Software as Fried Software at first glance. It's difficult to tell the difference between "free" and "freed" when spoken anyways. What we need to do is start referring to Non-Free software as software In Captivity. ;)
"Free software" is still a bad term - it's completely misunderstood by the public Posted Dec 3, 2006 20:37 UTC (Sun) by cantsin (subscriber, #4420) [Link] In my experience, the term "non-proprietary software" is best understood by lay people, although it would be nicer to define it in other than negative terms.
"Free software" is still a bad term - it's completely misunderstood by the public Posted Dec 4, 2006 6:39 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] I don't think "captive software" will ever take off. Just look at the uptake of crackers vs. hackers... nobody uses "cracker."
I like "freedom software" suggested earlier. It's got that Patriot Act you'd-be-an-idiot-to-disagree-with-it ring to it. :)
|
|
||||||||||||