In English, freedom is an inclusive term – it means no cost and no restrictions. However, get in a discussion about “freedom” and it’s inevitable that the definition of one or the other will be challenged. At this point, you’ll encounter a key trait of Linux advocacy. DefiningFreedom™ is the inevitible mincing about some new restricted definition of “freedom.”
What “cost” in “free from cost” means will be discussed. Charging money for support or access to documentation (FreeForAFee) may or may not be considered a cost. Opprotunity costs such as having to FixItYourself™ or doing without or not getting things done because YouDontNeedThat™ will almost never be considered as costs.
What “restrictions” mean in “free from restrictions” will also be up for debate; losing your copyright to any code is almost never seen as a restriction, of course, because software WantsToBeFree™. Licenses that limit what you’re allowed to do with the code, such as the patent clause in the GPL, may not be considered “restrictions” either.
These discussions aren’t limited to evangelism. In even innoucious discussions among *nix users, some great firestorms can erupt when one copyleftist’s redefinition of free clashes with another copyleftist’s redefinition of free, leaving great firestorms in their wake.
In advanced cases, this may also lead to a case of LatinLoanwords™: throwing around gratis and libre in seriousness.
Comments
Freetards persecute those who exercise their freedom and choose to use proprietary software.
It’s like hardcore femenists who get upset when a women exercises her hard-earned rights and actually chooses to be a home maker.
In both cases, it’s painfully hypocritical since the right to choose is where the freedom lies, not which choice they make!
@Administrator
“In both cases, it’s painfully hypocritical since the right to choose is where the freedom lies, not which choice they make!”
My new TM, FreeAsInHypocrisy™ describes the hypocrisy of the Linux zealots: they think that they are promoting software freedom when they are actually pushing people into using Linux.
Well, last time I looked, “libre” wasn’t a Latin word. I think it’s meant to evoke the memory of a bearded, asthmatic, girl-chasing medical student on a motorbike … which doesn’t sound much like any Loon I’ve come across … actually, I have no clue what it’s meant to evoke. Neither, I suspect, do those who evoke it.
Careful about the *nix thing, though: some of us actually use the ones with a U in them, or even the B-likes. Yes, both have their own brand of manic devotees, but somehow they are nowhere near as noxious as the Linux Youth.
(Good summary, btw.)
The FSF defines what they mean by “free software”:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
^What the FSF defines is not similar to what they say in the news page.
I would have been a dumbf*ck if I gave money to them.
You must be signed in to leave comments.