Some common words include: “open source”, “free”, “libre”, “FOSS”, “FLOSS”, “closed source”, “non-free”, “proprietary”. Which ones do you like to use or not like to use, and why?
Also, I understand that some of them are not the same (e.g. “free”/“libre” and “open source”), but are sometimes used as if they were. How do you feel about that?
I personally like to use the word proprietary. It has a clear definition, even without the need for something like the Free Software Foundation or the Open Source Initiative to provide one. That cannot be said for words like “free” or “open source”. Both “free” and “open” feel very shaky. I can imagine companies allowing very minor and trivial freedoms to users, to justify promoting themselves and their products as “free” and “open”. That might not work on hardcore enthusiasts like me, but it might be enough to confuse the masses and manipulate the public’s understanding of these words. I feel like we should take that more seriously. But maybe I’m just paranoid. Please tell me what you think about this. I am very curious
Most often, I say FOSS when talking to other folks in our community. It covers all the bases and everyone knows what it means around here.
I’ve never used “Libre” and I never hear it used, outside of software names like LibreOffice.
For outsiders, I don’t use “free software.” People hear “free” and only think it refers to the price. I don’t care too much for the debate between “free” and “Open source,” I get the distinction, but I think compromise is necessary if we want to have any hope of moving people away from proprietary software.
If I only stuck to GNU-style free software, I would never have switched away from proprietary software. If you want to do more than just write text emails and play 5 games ever, you have to move away from “pure” free software.
That being said, I use mostly FOSS software on all my platforms. All my computers and servers run Linux. My cell phone uses GrapheneOS. I self host almost all my services like Jellyfin and my TrueNAS. I’m a massive FOSS advocate, and I push hard against proprietary software all the time.
People hear “free” and only think it refers to the price
Yes, that’s why I don’t like to use it either.
GNU-style free software
I don’t understand what you mean by that.
I push hard against proprietary software all the time.
That is good to hear, fellow soldier.
GNU-style free software
I don’t understand what you mean by that
I think they mean like how gnu/fsf can be a bit fanatical about it
I think “free” is okay. If the software does come at no upfront cost, then fine, why not add that as an incentive to get people on board. They will figure out how to “pay back” sooner or later.
I can tell you a word I do avoid, and that is “alternative”. It makes FLOSS items sound like cheap knockoffs, always playing catch-up with their supposed proprietary and closed equivalents, always seeking feature parity, but never really getting as good as the original. This is not the case. Most software projects, once they reach maturity, more often than not, evolve into their own thing.
Yeah, I shy away from “alternative” for the same reasons.
I now say stuff like, “Protonmail is an email service that respects your privacy and runs fast in your browser.” Get them moved off MS and Goog.
You can also turn things on its head, like
“Krita supports a wide range of tablets and drawing devices out of the box, so you won’t miss expensive closed proprietary alternatives like Photoshop one bit”.
👆 improvised, but you get the idea. You get to reference something the user may know (and this helps you out giving them a clear idea of what you are talking about), and you cast “the alternative” (Photoshop) in a less positive light than the free/libre software at the same time.
You get to reference something the user may know (and this helps you out giving them a clear idea of what you are talking about), and you cast “the alternative” (Photoshop) in a less positive light than the free/libre software at the same time.
I like your thinking, and I agree. This is the way to go.
Open source. Because for me this term is the most general.
And the most recognized in general circles.
Free: closed source, Dev can make it non-free any time they want, add monetization, ads, collect and sell data, change licensing, etc at any time and you just have to deal with it or switch software
Foss/open source: if the Dev tries to monetize, add ads, go private, collect/sell data, people will just fork a non shitty version and maintain that
This is a good example of the “free as in freedom, not free beer” problem that “Lettuce eat lettuce” mentioned. In this context, “free” refers to the 4 essential freedoms as defined be the Free Software Foundation
Free Software, proprietary, open-weight models, source-available, FLOSS, copyleft, permissive license.
I think “open source” should mean what the OSI wants it to say, since they coined that term. But not all people agree and since they use it for different things and marketing, it’s lost some of its intended meaning. I don’t want to confuse people. And I also don’t like to use terms that can be (mis)used by the source-available people or people who add the commons clause, so I always try to include “free” as in freedom or “libre”.
My favorite word, bar none, is “proprietary”. There’s no word I use or enjoy more when exposing the beauty and satisfaction of using everything that is NOT!
Most the people getting the term “open source” wrong tend to use it to refer to so-called “source available” software - damn to I hate that name. IMHO, “open” being overloaded to mean both libre/free and open to read is where most of the confusion stems from. I like the FOSS/FLOSS acronyms for this reason.
Can you explain what the real difference is between open source and source available? It seems like essentially the same thing, my assumption being the difference is you can’t legally fork if it’s only source available? Or…
Source available means you get the code, and that’s pretty much it. Open source/free/libre is this, but you also get permission to modify and redistribute. “True” open source licenses also have provisions regarding having to distribute modifications.
I prefer to use, where possible, the term “software freedom.” This keeps the focus on the four freedoms enjoyed by the users.
If I need an adjective, I’ll prefer libre, then free. “Libre” has the disadvantage of not being a native English word, but it has relatives such as liberate or liberty, so it’s not too much of a stretch. “Free” has the disadvantage of being misconstrued as meaning free-of-cost, but this can be explained away.
“Open source” is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, “open source” is just as easy to misconstrue as “free” is - it can be misconstrued as “you can look at the source code” and many companies and organizations actively take advantage of this misconception. Also, “open source” puts the focus on source code, with the idea that having more developers with access to the code makes the program better technologically. This claim is debatable, but putting the focus on the source code makes it seem like open source only matters to developers and is simply irrelevant to those who don’t have the want or ability to use the source code. However, even non-developers can avail themselves of freedoms 0 and 2, and can hire other people or make use of the community to exercise freedoms 1 and 4. Sometimes, open source is misunderstood to refer to the community-based development model that is more properly known as the “bazaar model.”
“FOSS” and “FLOSS” are problematic for similar reasons as “free” above: they are very easily misconstrued to mean “free of cost and also open source” (whether open source means actual open source or simply “can view the source code”). It’s not uncommon for something to be described as “not OSS but free” for example.
For non-libre software I tend to just say proprietary. I’ll sometimes say non-free or non-libre, but non-free and closed source have the same problems as free and open source.
FOSS is freedom, real freedom not the buzzword thrown by liberals.
+1 for freedom, -1 for bringing up politics
You gotta be joking lol, FOSS is inherently politics.
That is news to me. Care to explain?
Trustworthy, community-made, free, efficient, customizable
“Paranoid”, “Pointless”, “Basement”, “Obsessive”, “Hackers”, “nerds”.
It is still a very very very very marginal and marginalyzed topic unless your social cyrcle is a very specific one.
In my experience the positive and/or effective ones are “GDPR”, “Snowden”, “Surveillance”, “Freedom”…
Why all the down votes? Did I miss something? It is a correct statement. In most circles people have no idea what you are talking about, and then only a few finally get it when you start mentioning Snowden, Privacy or Surveillance.
If I understand correctly, he says that our licenses are “pointless” and “paranoid”
Oh, OK, I didn’t see that, but maybhagr something to do with English not being my native language. Also, the fact that we’re paranoid, and we are, does not mean we’re not being followed. And pointless?, I find it much more pointless to pay for software to spy on you, and then get hooked on a subscription that was supposed to have every feature included when you “bought” the software.
You do not, in fact, understand correctly.
