* Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss <[email protected]> [2022-03-21 02:51]: > I have decided to say "freedom software". > Also: "freedom hardware".
Why do you think that it is necessary? I don't think it is necessary. Words have few definitions and in various context, so when you have good context there is no mistake. The GNU GPL license is clear on what is "free software". "free" is adjective, while "freedom" is noun, it is not quite proper. Then one shall not think for English only, but for other languages. If you wish to translate "free" to other languages that becomes meaningful. Don't narrow these considerations to English only. > The other fallback term, which I've sometimes used already, is > "freedom-respecting software". I am not English native speaker, though that sounds better. And I don't mean it as permanent replacement for "free software", though as different way of expression. > All software I release is also free of charge. Though in free software it is not relevant. You can as well sell it. I have some technical drawings published under GNU Free Documentation License and I sell it, though give clear information that other person can sell it too and also publish it if they want. Same can be done with software. If you would say "Pay 10 dollars for download" people would pay, download it, you would get better information who is appreciating it more. You can as well put some payment links or Bitcoin addresses for donations. For free software is just fine to sell it for whatever prices. > That said, I want there to be no (or less) ambiguity about what I > mean when I talk about software or hardware. I'm in favour of > *freedom*. I don't think you would get less ambiguity, I find it is subjective impression. As non-English speaker I have not had any ambiguity when reading "free software" since 1999. Maybe because I was reading about it also in German language (German "freie Software") so there was no doubt. I do not agree with expression "free and open source" as that is one which may give more ambiguity, as one then compares "open source" and "free" -- does it mean it is free of charge and open source? If it matters that software is free of charge, that means it sails away from meaning of "free software" as free software is not free of charge. It is sold over the world all the time for good money, often bundled on hosting packages or on computers, sold on DVDs. > Another problem: what should we say when referring to proprietary > software? I think you have a boring day and you invent problems out of nothing. > Many people, especially in the west, view "proprietary" as a good > thing. In free software movement we do not adapt ourselves not ethically to what other people like or find as good thing. We promote free software as such. 1. proprietary -- (protected by trademark or patent or copyright; made or produced or distributed by one having exclusive rights; The definition is very clear. If somebody finds it good to have exclusive rights, we in free software movement don't find it good, and that is why we like and create free software. > They see "property" and think you don't own free software (yet, you > do own your copy). That is your subjective impression. I don't see it so, never have seen it that way. While you do "own" copy of software, you do not automatically own copyrights, you get permissions to do with it, you get the four freedoms. On your contributions you can get copyrights. You wish to say following: - when I say "free" or "proprietary" the other party does not understand me, so let me change the words I use; Instead, explain the context. It is not hard as the GNU GPL license already explains the context of free software and proprietary software. > I propose the term "restricted software". Proposal is totally out of the context. You wanted to remove ambiguities, though by talking about "restricted" software instead of "proprietary software" one cannot any more without explanation understand how exactly this software is restricted. There is no relevancy to exclusive rights and copyrights. "Proprietary" gives direct relation, "restricted" not. Linux kernel is restricted software by many means, for example it may or may not provide proper drivers. Computer may not run because there are no free drivers and perception may be at some users that it is restricted software. GNU/Linux system is restricted software, it cannot run proprietary software packages, not so easy as they are not made for it. chrootuid runs in restricted environment rush is GNU restricted user shell Too many ambiguities. Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/ _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
