Linked by David Adams on Tue 3rd Aug 2010 17:23 UTC, submitted by fsmag
GNU, GPL, Open Source Free Software Magazine published an interesting lexicon of terms that are thrown around within the Free Software and Creative Commons worlds that have particular meaning, and might not be familiar to people who aren't open source or free culture advocates.
Thread beginning with comment 435350
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Halo
by Halo on Wed 4th Aug 2010 13:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Halo"
Member since:

Google "free software". 7 out of the top 10 websites (excluding sponsored links) refer to 'freeware'. If you asked someone who had never heard of 'free software' what it meant, they'd think of 'freeware'. It's not clear and unambiguous. Free beer doesn't imply beer with freedom to most people. There's a reason why 'open source' and 'FOSS' exist.

The definitions about 'open source' and 'free software' aren't about morality. In fact, the FSF concede the difference is subtle, the main difference being where the emphasis is.

Liberated in contrast with proprietary software. Since the FSF regard proprietary software as immoral, perhaps the prison comparison is apt.

Just because someone has made a positive contribution doesn't make them immune from criticism. By creating the GPL and GCC, he helped bring computing forward. I don't think he has since.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Halo
by lemur2 on Wed 4th Aug 2010 13:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Halo"
lemur2 Member since:

Liberated in contrast with proprietary software.

"Liberated" implies that something has been set free.

Freedom software was never un-free in the first place.

The whole point of writing code and releasing it under a freedom software license is to make the software free-as-in-freedom to start with, and for it to remain that way forever.

IMO it can't be "liberated" if it wasn't "captured" in the first place.

"Freedom software" is the best term. "Freedom software" is a bit clumsy to say, and that is a good thing because it clearly makes a distinction with "freeware", which is much easier to say.

PS: If software was closed to begin with, then making it open source (aka as "open sourcing" it) smacks a little of stealing, IMO.

Edited 2010-08-04 13:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Halo
by BallmerKnowsBest on Wed 4th Aug 2010 15:30 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Halo"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:

"Freedom software" is the best term. "Freedom software" is a bit clumsy to say

And it sounds like something that should come with a side of Freedom Fries.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Halo
by BluenoseJake on Thu 5th Aug 2010 13:43 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Halo"
BluenoseJake Member since:

Freedom software is a horrible term. It sounds like a a company, not a type of software development and distribution philosophy. I wouldn't be caught dead using it. Open Source sounds better, is more correct (The source is open, and available), and less ambiguous.

Reply Parent Score: 2