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

  • Captain Beyond@linkage.ds8.zone
    2·
    6 months ago

    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.