[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: John
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]PHILOSOPHY file
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:40:09 -0600

S11001001 wrote:
> > Also, in the PHILOSOPHY file, I would suggest using the terms "Liberated"
> > and "Software Freedom" whenever possible.  These carry all the meaning of
> > "Free Software" without the ambiguity.
> I think that might be too drastic a step. FS has used the same name the whole
> time, and changing that name is an extreme step, like releasing a new version
> of the GPL ;)

My anecdotal experience and the media-mouths all show-to-go that this
would not be an extreme step. Everytime a commercial company raises the
price of their GNU/Linux distribution or service; some Joe/Jane
Six-packperson (even in the general media) will inevitably flame: "I
thought thus-and-so software was free" (as in air).

The word "liberated" makes the point much more pointedly. With "free"
you have about 20 variants and shades of meaning. With liberated, you
have 3 definitions. Of course, one definition of "liberated" is slang
and oppositive - "to liberate the cash from the shopowner" - ie steal.

So, say as you like - I've found that when I say "liberated software"
people are more likely to think "Liberty and Freedom" than if I say
"Free", which when juxtaposed with "software" does *in the public mind*
equate to 0-cost. This is a marketting issue and dang it all it's time
we started marketting the philosophy instead of counting on the software
to speak for itself.

Sometimes I think we refer to the license as "Free" because "Liberated"
requires more keystrokes. :-)

John Le'Brecage

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]