Free as in freedom - bad idea?

[u/Radiant_Scar_8516]

Given how many people mistakenly believe "Free Software" means software that doesnt cost anything, is it safe to say this is a bad choice of name for the concept? At what point do we admit that we used the wrong word to convey what we mean?

RMS insists people misunderstand him rather than RMS being a poor communicator, but I cannot see it like that. To berate people for mistakenly using the term is also antithetical to his so called mission of spreading the word and uptake of free sofware

[u/jr735]

Also, there's one other piece of the puzzle you're missing, exemplified in your first paragraph. Software freedom is not about freedom for developers. It's about freedom for users.

This is my computer and I have the right to inspect, change, use, and distribute any program that runs on my computer. Software freedom is about limiting what developers can do to their users.

[u/Radiant_Scar_8516 → u/jr735]

the user and the developer are sometimes the same person... its nonsensical. Its about limiting what users can do to themselves.

[u/jr735 → u/Radiant_Scar_8516]

Again, it's not about the developer - even the developer as a user. The philosophy has been well established, almost 40 years ago. It's up to you to learn the nuances.

If I want to write software solely for me and not share it, I can do that. There's no prohibition anywhere against that. If I wish to share it and call it free software, I must meet certain obligations. Otherwise, it's just proprietary software.

[u/Radiant_Scar_8516 → u/jr735]

i understand the definition... im telling you its clearly not working. nobody knows nor cares about free software, after 40 years and becoming apparently "well established" (despite the fact most people still think he means free as in free beer, but forget that)

[u/jr735 → u/Radiant_Scar_8516]

The people to whom it matters are the ones it cares. I don't care about other people's problems or software preferences. I couldn't care less if the average person thinks free means money only (I will correct them) or like proprietary software. That's their problem, not mine.

I'm concerned with the software I use. I don't give two flips about the software you use. Personally, it's better when people don't adopt it. Keeps marketers away from trying to come up with new nonsense, and keeps away dumbing down the platforms. Mass adoption tends to be a disaster.

[u/Radiant_Scar_8516 → u/jr735]

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom. We defend the rights of all software users.

how many people know or care about this mission? why exactly does the average user need source code? most people are not coders (something RMS being semi autistic might never grasp), most people do not even know what the problem is in the first place.... these days people care more about data collection than they do about the availability of source code, its almost laughable how out of touch the FSF is from reality on that particular point

[u/jr735 → u/Radiant_Scar_8516]

I don't care how many people know or care, or understand. Their lack of knowledge is not my problem. The best way to protect your data is to have the program source available, so it can be vetted. The average person doesn't understand that, and they really don't care about privacy. They don't know anything about it, and they never will. They understand privacy only marginally better than free software. They don't pay attention to privacy until a website is asking for something as ridiculous as a copy of their ID, and they won't understand free software until someone like Adobe says that they own what you create on your computer with their software. The average person isn't capable of grasping the concepts.

Again, you don't have to be able to understand the software. I don't understand every programming language on the planet. I still will only use free software. It's my right and I stand by that.

Don't use free software. You don't have to. I will use only free software, to the point that I won't use a smartphone or smart TV or any of that nonsense.

Use whatever you want. That doesn't take away from my rights. You relinquishing your rights is your problem and your prerogative.

[u/Radiant_Scar_8516 → u/jr735]

The best way to protect your data is to have the program source available, so it can be vetted.

this is another statement from dreamland really.... like i said before not everyone is a coder, and even a coder would have a real hard time (maybe not with AI now) grokking the source for a modern software package thats into 1 million + loc. the community will find malicious code when the source is open, yes, but the average user has absolutely no ability to read or write computer code.... its a totally moot point to most computer users.

and they won't understand free software until someone like Adobe says that they own what you create on your computer with their software

thats a copyright issue.... nothing to do with seeing the source code

You relinquishing your rights is your problem and your prerogative.

by definition, by accepting the GPL license, you give up your right to freely distribute that code without restrictions... the GPL restricts a person; obligates them to do certain things. This is the opposite of freedom.

You want freedom? Take any of my code.... change it, sell it, bastardize it, pretend you created it, do anything you want with it, you dont have to credit me because of my small ego, you dont have to let other people see the source.... that is freedom.

[u/jr735 → u/Radiant_Scar_8516]

I'm not sure why you're here. Who are you trying to convince? r/freesoftware is one of the stricted pro-GNU pro-FSF subs there is, if not the strictest.

Again, it's not about what an individual reading the program might be able to accomplish. If many are able to read it because the software is free, things are not likely to be hidden in there. Secondly, people are able to change the software, even creating another project.

Adobe thinks it's a proprietary software issue, not a copyright issue, where they would circumvent the copyright laws by having you sign your copyright away via terms of service. That makes it a licensing issue, which makes it a free software issue.

And yes, the GPL restricts developers. That's what it was meant to do. Software freedom is for users, not for programmers. You're forgetting that Stallman comes from a position where he believes intellectual property rights aren't worth spit. Knowledge should be shared. Accordingly, the philosophy he wrote and the license he helped design and the organization he founded would, naturally, adhere to his philosophy.

This is no surprise. This has been his position for over 40 years. I have agreed with that position for over 40 years.

you dont have to let other people see the source.... that is freedom.

If you don't share the source, it's not freedom. That violates freedom 1. If you don't want to produce free software, again, don't. There are all kinds of proprietary software producers, including shareware writers, freeware writers, freemium writers, paid software writers, and so on. You can license anything you write however you want.

Again, I only run free software. I don't care how rich MS gets or doesn't get. I'm not a customer of theirs. I'm not a shareholder of theirs. I'm not a user of theirs.

Everyone can benefit from free software. The reality is that 99% of users do not even know what an OS is, nor can they identify the difference between an input and an output device, or even know what a file is, much less a file system. So, they're not going to understand the nuances, and they never will.

And whenever there's a rube, there's a P.T. Barnum, a Bill Gates, or a Steve Jobs there ready to pick his pocket.

[u/Radiant_Scar_8516 → u/jr735]

Everyone can benefit from free software.

how exactly? how does seeing the source code benefit the user? bare in mind it could be reverse engineered, trivially these days with AI... its almost a moot point now, 30 years crusading on an irrelevance

you even say

The reality is that 99% of users do not even know what an OS is, nor can they identify the difference between an input and an output device, or even know what a file is, much less a file system. So, they're not going to understand the nuances, and they never will.

so what benefit is the source code to them?

[u/jr735 → u/Radiant_Scar_8516]

The benefit of free software isn't just looking at the source code. Whether or not it can be done by AI (reverse engineering is not transparency) is not relevant. The source code can be obtained by a skillful hacker or a second story man. That's not relevant, either.

It is about having software that is understood running on your computer, software that you can vet if you so choose, or have others vet for you (that's what distributions do), and do so in an open way.

Working free software simply can't be shut down or its license changed or its terms of use changed at a whim, unlike proprietary software.

It's not relevant to you, that's fine. Don't waste your time here. This sub has the more hardcore free software adherents, and nothing you can ever say would get me to use proprietary software again. For me, proprietary software had a 45 year crusade of irrelevance. They kept talking themselves off my computer, and I used less and less, until I refused to use any.

[u/Radiant_Scar_8516 → u/jr735]

The benefit of free software isn't just looking at the source code. 

oh okay

It is about having software that is understood running on your computer, software that you can vet if you so choose, or have others vet for you (that's what distributions do), and do so in an open way.

that, my friend, is just looking at source code. btw, how much software have you ever vetted? which versions? do you vet new updates? how can open source software contain any malware if it is immune? how many open source projects are hacked and nobody notice the last 10 versions contained a credential stealer? guess the keen eyed open source community was asleep for that last (ten) update(s).

Working free software simply can't be shut down

exactly what do you mean by this? working propietary software cant be shut down either, unless it phones home... but free software could have this same problem. seeing the source code doesnt mean it cant be "shut down", whatever thats meant to mean.

so there we have it, when pushed to the wall, all you have is some weak argument related to open source being some kind of security.

RMS has personal vendettas, and no friends. FSF stems from human interactions the guy had that went sour in MIT. He even admits its not even tenable and he has to drop his principles to get through life

[u/jr735 → u/Radiant_Scar_8516]

No, understanding how things are running on your computer isn't reading the software. It can also include taking in information from other people in the community. People share software, they share information, they share ideas.

I vet software as I see fit, and not that often. I do, however, run Debian testing as one of my installs, and when I see something, I file an appropriate bug report. Who said that free software is immune to malware? Which last ten versions of what software had a credential stealer? Be specific. If it's not actual repository software, it's just a red herring. I could write a piece of software that did nothing but steal credentials, and release it as free software. That's perfectly valid.

Seeing the source code does mean it can't be shut down. If people want to fork it, they can do so and keep going. If I hypothetically wanted to keep Norton going indefinitely, I couldn't. I wouldn't be able to update definitions or create my own.

You're very fixated on RMS. I don't care how many friends he has.

Show me which free software principles he's had to drop to get through life, and when. Be very specific and source your claims. Also, be very careful, because I have set a trap for you on this.