Definition of free
I have seen it many times that free software in the Linux sense means "free" as in freedom, not "free" as in free beer. Free in the Oxford dictionary says free is defined as not under the control of anyoneelse, not confined/obstructed. What is the difference as both can cost an arm and a leg?
On Thursday 20 April 2006 13:43, Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC) wrote:
What is the difference as both can cost an arm and a leg?
Freedom can indeed cost an arm and a leg. In the wrong circumstances it can even cost a head. But in the final tally, isn't it worth it?
Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC) wrote:
I have seen it many times that free software in the Linux sense means "free" as in freedom, not "free" as in free beer.
Free in the Oxford dictionary says free is defined as not under the control of anyoneelse, not confined/obstructed.
What is the difference as both can cost an arm and a leg?
What's freedom worth? With open source software, "free" means you have access to the source and can modify it etc. It also tends to mean low or no cost. Both of the above are opposite of what you tend to get with Microsoft products.
This is from the Free Software Foundation which is the originator of the
term. It is irrelevant what the dictionary states as RMS defines what "free
software" is.
http://www.fsf.org/
'Free software is a matter of liberty not price. You should think of "free"
as in "free speech".'
Additionally:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,
study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four
kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
(freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the
source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you
should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without
modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone
anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you
do not have to ask or pay for permission.
--
Jerry Feldman
Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC) wrote:
I have seen it many times that free software in the Linux sense means "free" as in freedom, not "free" as in free beer.
Free in the Oxford dictionary says free is defined as not under the control of anyoneelse, not confined/obstructed.
What is the difference as both can cost an arm and a leg?
A look at the GNU Public Licenses will provide a more thorough answer than I'll be giving here. Essentially, "free" for GNU and Linux means that the source code is available and you can alter it if you want to, but you don't own the alterations-- they're free also. This is typically not the case with *proprietary* software, i.e., software which is owned by someone. In addition, free software is not sold in the strict sense. Someone-- in fact, anyone-- can charge a "moderate" amount for the distribution of the software, s.a., burning it on a CD and packaging and mailing it to you. But you can do the same thing. And if you look at all the Linux distros available, you can see that many people have. This is pretty much the OED definition you cite above. Contrast that sense of "free" with the concept of "private", which essentially means that you can *deprive* others of it. It's also the case though, that many distros contain software which is not free and so the distributors charge something to recoup the licensing fee for those specific products. Many distros also offer support to purchasers of their products and charge you for that. Technically, this isn't a charge for the software, right? Finally, it's true that you *can* pay a lot for "free" software. But you don't have to. There's lots of free software available that won't cost an appendage or two. There's also a lot of websites and other lists where this topic is discussed in greater depth and detail. And perhaps others here will add further comments. -- "This world ain't big enough for the both of us," said the big noema to the little noema.
Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC) wrote:
I have seen it many times that free software in the Linux sense means "free" as in freedom, not "free" as in free beer.
Free in the Oxford dictionary says free is defined as not under the control of anyoneelse, not confined/obstructed.
What is the difference as both can cost an arm and a leg? Thanks for all the thoughts but the definition still needs to be made ie what is the difference between free as in freedom and free as in beer? Is one 'freer' than the other? which of free in freedom and free as in free beer represents the M$ side? Can I assume the oter is the Linux free?
I am free to do what I want ie freedom, and that means writing software, giving it away etc ie it is my choice. I am also free to have a beer and give it away etc but I cannot change it. Think I just solved my own query. Free as in freedom is like the Linux idea ie I can choose how I want it to be and who I give it to. Free as in free beer is like the M$ idea ie I cannot choose how I want it but I can also choose who I want to give it to, not that I want to give away good beer mind you. :)
On 22/04/06, Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC)
Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC) wrote:
I have seen it many times that free software in the Linux sense means "free" as in freedom, not "free" as in free beer.
Free in the Oxford dictionary says free is defined as not under the control of anyoneelse, not confined/obstructed.
What is the difference as both can cost an arm and a leg? Thanks for all the thoughts but the definition still needs to be made ie what is the difference between free as in freedom and free as in beer? Is one 'freer' than the other? which of free in freedom and free as in free beer represents the M$ side? Can I assume the oter is the Linux free?
I am free to do what I want ie freedom, and that means writing software, giving it away etc ie it is my choice. I am also free to have a beer and give it away etc but I cannot change it.
Think I just solved my own query. Free as in freedom is like the Linux idea ie I can choose how I want it to be and who I give it to.
Free as in free beer is like the M$ idea ie I cannot choose how I want it but I can also choose who I want to give it to, not that I want to give away good beer mind you. :)
I see it as one (e.g. the GPL) being an intellectual freedom and the other being a physical freebie. HTH -- ============================================== I am only human, please forgive me if I make a mistake it is not deliberate. ============================================== Xmas may be over but, PLEASE DON'T drink and drive you'll make it to the next one that way. Kevan Farmer Linux user #373362 Cheslyn Hay Staffordshire WS6 7HR
Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC) wrote:
Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC) wrote:
I have seen it many times that free software in the Linux sense means "free" as in freedom, not "free" as in free beer.
Free in the Oxford dictionary says free is defined as not under the control of anyoneelse, not confined/obstructed.
What is the difference as both can cost an arm and a leg?
Thanks for all the thoughts but the definition still needs to be made ie what is the difference between free as in freedom and free as in beer? Is one 'freer' than the other? which of free in freedom and free as in free beer represents the M$ side? Can I assume the oter is the Linux free?
I am free to do what I want ie freedom, and that means writing software, giving it away etc ie it is my choice. I am also free to have a beer and give it away etc but I cannot change it.
Think I just solved my own query. Free as in freedom is like the Linux idea ie I can choose how I want it to be and who I give it to.
That is where my view of free lies. If you need to add a second or third computer to carry the load of the work being done, then you are free to copy the software and all the effort *YOU* have put in getting the first system working. Having to pay an extra license - sometimes MORE than the original for 'distributed' systems is just a joke.
Free as in free beer is like the M$ idea ie I cannot choose how I want it but I can also choose who I want to give it to, not that I want to give away good beer mind you. :)
Internet Explorer is supplied free - I choose not to bother using it, and would prefer to remove it. Then I can use a browser that works on both my widows and Linux boxes in the same way and freely copy it across machines :) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc.
Þann Fimmtudaguren den 20 apríl 2006 13:43 skrifaði Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC):
I have seen it many times that free software in the Linux sense means "free" as in freedom, not "free" as in free beer.
Free in the Oxford dictionary says free is defined as not under the control of anyoneelse, not confined/obstructed.
What is the difference as both can cost an arm and a leg?
You're living in a democracy, and you have freedom. Every 4 years, or so, you get to chose between bad A and bad B. This is democracy. You have the freedom to go out and spend your money, on buying stuff but just because you paid for it, doesn't mean you own it. And just because you own it, doesn't mean you have the right to do with it what you want. You live in a free world, but that doesn't mean that everything you see and hear is for your own pleasure. You can see what you want, but you're not allowed to take pictures of it ... and you're not allowed to record what you hear. You are allowed to have any opinion you want, this is your freedom ... but if you have the wrong opinion, you will not be able to acquire a job, because you might be considered a danger to society. If your opinions are bad, you may not be allowed to vote, so that others will not have to suffer for your bad opinions. You are free to walk outside, but you are not free to go where you want. You are free to live, but you are not free to live where you might want. You need permits, the correctly filled out application forms, the right stuff ... the right parenthood. If you are lucky, you might be applicable to die so others can live. If you are even luckier, you might be applicable to seek employment somewhere else to participate in the reduction of quality of life for those who already live there, as the capital gain needs to be increased. Welcome to hotel California ... enjoy your stay.
Orn E. Hansen wrote:
Þann Fimmtudaguren den 20 apríl 2006 13:43 skrifaði Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC):
I have seen it many times that free software in the Linux sense means "free" as in freedom, not "free" as in free beer.
Free in the Oxford dictionary says free is defined as not under the control of anyoneelse, not confined/obstructed.
What is the difference as both can cost an arm and a leg?
You're living in a democracy, and you have freedom. Every 4 years, or so, you get to chose between bad A and bad B. This is democracy. You have the freedom to go out and spend your money, on buying stuff but just because you paid for it, doesn't mean you own it. And just because you own it, doesn't mean you have the right to do with it what you want. You live in a free world, but that doesn't mean that everything you see and hear is for your own pleasure. You can see what you want, but you're not allowed to take pictures of it ... and you're not allowed to record what you hear. You are allowed to have any opinion you want, this is your freedom ... but if you have the wrong opinion, you will not be able to acquire a job, because you might be considered a danger to society. If your opinions are bad, you may not be allowed to vote, so that others will not have to suffer for your bad opinions. You are free to walk outside, but you are not free to go where you want. You are free to live, but you are not free to live where you might want. You need permits, the correctly filled out application forms, the right stuff ... the right parenthood. If you are lucky, you might be applicable to die so others can live. If you are even luckier, you might be applicable to seek employment somewhere else to participate in the reduction of quality of life for those who already live there, as the capital gain needs to be increased.
Welcome to hotel California ... enjoy your stay. Where's that wrist slashing razor blade :) which I am also free to do :)
Þann Þriðjudaguren den 25 apríl 2006 12:28 skrifaði Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC):
Where's that wrist slashing razor blade :) which I am also free to do :)
Boy, are you aware that "suicide" in my language is "self murder". Murder is murder, no matter who the victim is. This is not your freedom, it's a crime! Even the very thought, that you need to escape the freedoms you have is a crime! Now, we can not put in jail for your thoughts ... yet, mind you! ... we'll change that soon. Such horrible thoughts need to be removed from any persons mind. They are harmful to society and oneself! Sign up to the next Freud clinik, and you'll be made FREE of such harmful thoughts! :-)
participants (8)
-
Anders Johansson -
Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC) -
James Knott -
Jerry Feldman -
ken -
Kevanf1 -
Lester Caine -
Orn E. Hansen