on software, incorrect statements, and incorrect terminology

Gepetto · Post by **Gepetto** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:22 pm

Language is language, it evolves through what people say, not through what scholars want them to say. You threw the term "Free software" to the crowd, it's their term now and they do what they want to it. This isn't a definition problem, it's a grammar usage problem, because both definitions of the word "free" are correct, and they both apply to all the Free software I've ever encountered (I've never seen paid Free software like Zarxrax claims).

Here's an example of how language works: In Portuguese, a traditionally formal way to refer to someone around the 19th century was "vossa mercê". After the terminology was popularized, it was shortened, and today all the dictionaries show "você" as an "informal pronoun for the 2nd person singular". There are a billion more examples in every language out there (except esperanto ^^). The use of "free software" as a general term is already widespread, and your mission to change it is actually even more futile than Dom Quichote's. Windmills are solid. You're charging clouds with a butterfly net. I'm not saying "if you cant beat them, join them". I'm saying that your definition of "Free software" as in "free speech" is jargon, and jargon is meant for people who know what they're talking about. All the other poor mortals will stick to the "free software" as in "free beer" definition, because to them it sounds more logical and natural.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:41 pm

Fair points, all.

I think that, in order to get what I want, I shall have to re-visit the .org's codebase and see what I need to do to get approval to insert code to perform substitution of /free software/i to free software, at least on these boards. That tube thing is substituted hosatchel, so it might be possible to push other agendas.

I mean, it sounds like everyone here is complaining about the futility of voluntary change, so I'll push for a way to force change using existing paths of least resistance.

Nobody has a problem with that, right?

If this goes through, feel free to start calling me Benito Mussolini, or something.

(I've never seen paid Free software like Zarxrax claims).

You may have not seen it because a lot of money made around free software is in (1) custom development, (2) building larger systems around free software, and (3) support. Four particularly good example companies I can think of are Canonical, Trolltech, MySQL AB, and LiveJournal / Six Apart.

Willen wrote: I always assume that if software is Open Source, I can view the code AND modify and redistribute it if I so wished to (as long as I don't violate the GPL or whatever license it is distributed under).

This page contains a good example of what can go wrong.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:44 pm

trythil wrote:I mean, it sounds like everyone here is complaining about the futility of voluntary change, so I'll push for a way to force change using existing paths of least resistance.

Somehow I dropped a block of text:

Sure, not everyone will click on the link, but it'll get them wondering why it was linked in the first place. If they don't want to be associated with that term, then they'll consciously have to use different terms, or misspell it.

Win-win? Yeah, probably, if I ever get off my ass and try to do this.

Shazzy · Post by **Shazzy** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:35 pm

trythil wrote:
If this goes through, feel free to start calling me Benito Mussolini, or something.

You still haven't explained why you won't advocate a new term instead of bulldozing existing lingo.

In the U.S. around the late 1960s, the term "Negro" had collected an assortment of connotations that many found unpleasant. Rather than word filtering conversations to say Negro instead of Negro, a new term was formed: "African-American". That phrase eventually developed its own political connotations, and the term "black" is taking on the original definition of "Negro" and "African-American".

What you're attempting to do is change connotations (or denotations) that evolved gradually through the interactions of millions of people. Do you really believe that's effective? There are exceptions, I'm sure, but if you are genuinely concerned about a niche for free software as opposed to free software, then promote a new term instead of this Mussolini nonsense.

Or are you just making a forcible statement for kicks?

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:37 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSS

I always like FLOSS, myself (just now learned what it actually stands for).

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:47 pm

shazzy wrote:
trythil wrote:
If this goes through, feel free to start calling me Benito Mussolini, or something.

You still haven't explained why you won't advocate a new term instead of bulldozing existing lingo.

You still haven't explained why you think the term "free software" should be forever regulated to cyberlaw jargon.

But fine. How about "libre software"?

Shazzy · Post by **Shazzy** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:36 pm

trythil wrote:
But fine. How about "libre software"?

I'm for it. Vive la libre software?

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:03 pm

Shouldn't it be "software libre"?

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:50 pm

Scintilla wrote:Shouldn't it be "software libre"?

Probably not in English, which I guess is one of the term's problems.

Orwell · Post by **Orwell** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:01 pm

Knowledge is power, and Freedom is slavery. Vote yes in '50 for proprietary software.

Seriously though, the context is unlikely to change. Free to the average user means free beer. The subset of those who understand free software as you desire it will probably phrase their question differently, or else ask in a manner dissimilar to, "gimme free adobe software cause I can't read" in which case they would probably be directed to someone who can give a appropriate answer. I highly doubt even those who can point to free-beer and software will know/care about OSS/FS and the differences or even how to do much tinkering.

If we really want a change that will be noticable, I think your best bet would be trying to get the FS people to change, since the smaller group is the more likely one to go for it. And to that end, I vote for flaccidware.