better terminology to promote freedom

better terminology to promote freedom

[Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1357 bytes --]


Hi everyone,

I started this on twitter[1] and mastodon[2], but thought I'd also
start the discussion here, where likeminded people exist who, I
believe, can contribute to this discussion. My questions relate to
terminology regarding "free software" and "proprietary software". Here
goes:

I've been thinking: what if we had a better term than "free software"
to say "free software"?  Same ideological zeal, in an unambiguous
fashion. This question pertains to English-speaking communities.

I have decided to say "freedom software".
Also: "freedom hardware".

Thoughts?

The other fallback term, which I've sometimes used already, is
"freedom-respecting software".

All software I release is also free of charge. 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*.

Another problem: what should we say when referring to proprietary
software?

Many people, especially in the west, view "proprietary" as a good
thing. They see "property" and think you don't own free software (yet,
you do own your copy).

I propose the term "restricted software".

References:

[1] https://nitter.net/n4of7/status/1505679592996032512

[2] https://mas.to/@libreleah/107991334172217870

-- 
Freedom is good.
Non-freedom is bad.
Defend freedom!

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: better terminology to promote freedom

[Valentino Giudice]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 485 bytes --]

I've heard "freedom software" too, but it's slightly weird. Surely
"freedom-respecting software" conveys the idea, but it is longer and, I
believe, less prone to being treated as a "technical" term with an
objective definition and a common understanding (which is useful when the
term ends up in the law).

Why not "libre software"? It's already common, it's easily understood by
any English-speaking person (because they will know "liberty") and better
translates to other languages.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 508 bytes --]

   I've heard "freedom software" too, but it's slightly weird. Surely
   "freedom-respecting software" conveys the idea, but it is longer and, I
   believe, less prone to being treated as a "technical" term with an
   objective definition and a common understanding (which is useful when
   the term ends up in the law).
   Why not "libre software"? It's already common, it's easily understood
   by any English-speaking person (because they will know "liberty") and
   better translates to other languages.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: better terminology to promote freedom

[Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1201 bytes --]



On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 00:58:35 +0100
Valentino Giudice <valentino.giudice96@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've heard "freedom software" too, but it's slightly weird. Surely
> "freedom-respecting software" conveys the idea, but it is longer and,
> I believe, less prone to being treated as a "technical" term with an
> objective definition and a common understanding (which is useful when
> the term ends up in the law).
> 
> Why not "libre software"? It's already common, it's easily understood
> by any English-speaking person (because they will know "liberty") and
> better translates to other languages.

Well, "libre" is great too, but I get the impression that not all
English speakers understand its meaning when they first see it. It's
largely a translation of words from other languages.

The term "freedom" is well-understood by English speakers, and it is
mostly unambiguous. Also, many people know English as a second or third
language and in such cases, the word is still well-understood.

I'm sceptical about the term "libre", just because it's not the default
word in English-speaking countries (freedom is the default word, for
the intended meaning we wish to convey).

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: better terminology to promote freedom

[Aaron Wolf]

Hi Leah, my talk from Saturday focused a lot on the question of 
terminology, though I didn't get into this specific topic more than a 
little.

Freedom as a noun is good, "software freedom"

But for adjective, I like FLO for Free/Libre/Open. It's not just a junk 
term, it writes and pronounces nicely. The sound being like "flow" is 
fine, that connotation fits.

More on that at
https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/free-libre-open

It's definitely not about being ideologically neutral, it's about strong 
care about all the political principles.

I also agree that "proprietary" is ineffective in a lot of ways. But 
your critique is a bit off. Proprietary *does* mean property. It's an 
adjective for property. And I'd argue that we don't "own" free software 
copies, we own computer devices, and those devices can have whatever 
patterns of bits. What non-free licenses do is they tell us that we are 
legally blocked from freely using our own computing devices. I think we 
would do well to focus on that type of ownership and not ownership of 
software.

Ownership of software really means ownership of copyright. And when we 
have a free software license, we are legally licensed under the owner's 
copyright, and the license grants us all the freedoms.

But this doesn't resolve how to better talk about proprietary software.

If we go with FLO, then we can say non-FLO. And one thing I like about 
that is that it makes FLO the default. But I'd prefer a stronger term.

In my talk, I focused on the economics of abundant vs scarce and open vs 
exclusive. And within the four types of goods, proprietary software is 
"club goods" which means abundant but exclusive. And it makes sense to 
use that language maybe.

Proprietary software is "exclusive club-goods software" or maybe 
"exclusive software". And if people ask, "what do you mean it's 
exclusive, anyone can get it", the answer is, "it's exclusive to those 
who accept the ads, the terms and restrictions, and/or pay the license 
fee; that's how you join the exclusive club!" Or in some cases, it's 
"access and use of the software isn't exclusive, but the rights to share 
and to adapt the software is exclusively reserved, so you don't have 
those freedoms. That's why it's still a form of exclusive software."

Some people won't mind that software is exclusive, but there's no simple 
word that can explain what's wrong without explaining why software 
freedom matters.

And as long as we talk about the exclusive club, we can also emphasize 
that there are certain people who set and change the rules for the club, 
that it's not democratic.

With this language, we are making it clear to people how to think about 
their RELATIONSHIP to the software and the software providers and the 
economics of it.

All that said, I think "restricted software" is FINE, that's a good 
option and superior to "proprietary" for most cases.

My inclination at this point is actually to prefer "restricted software".

So, I think it's good to have two terms that can be presented as 
opposing. "FLO software" and "restricted software" works well IMO.

Best,
Aaron Wolf

On 2022-03-20 17:06, Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 00:58:35 +0100
> Valentino Giudice <valentino.giudice96@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I've heard "freedom software" too, but it's slightly weird. Surely
>> "freedom-respecting software" conveys the idea, but it is longer and,
>> I believe, less prone to being treated as a "technical" term with an
>> objective definition and a common understanding (which is useful when
>> the term ends up in the law).
>>
>> Why not "libre software"? It's already common, it's easily understood
>> by any English-speaking person (because they will know "liberty") and
>> better translates to other languages.
> 
> Well, "libre" is great too, but I get the impression that not all
> English speakers understand its meaning when they first see it. It's
> largely a translation of words from other languages.
> 
> The term "freedom" is well-understood by English speakers, and it is
> mostly unambiguous. Also, many people know English as a second or third
> language and in such cases, the word is still well-understood.
> 
> I'm sceptical about the term "libre", just because it's not the default
> word in English-speaking countries (freedom is the default word, for
> the intended meaning we wish to convey).
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: better terminology to promote freedom

[Aaron Wolf]

Hi Leah, my talk from Saturday focused a lot on the question of 
terminology, though I didn't get into this specific topic more than a 
little.

Freedom as a noun is good, "software freedom"

But for adjective, I like FLO for Free/Libre/Open. It's not just a junk 
term, it writes and pronounces nicely. The sound being like "flow" is 
fine, that connotation fits.

More on that at
https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/free-libre-open

It's definitely not about being ideologically neutral, it's about strong 
care about all the political principles.

I also agree that "proprietary" is ineffective in a lot of ways. But 
your critique is a bit off. Proprietary *does* mean property. It's an 
adjective for property. And I'd argue that we don't "own" free software 
copies, we own computer devices, and those devices can have whatever 
patterns of bits. What non-free licenses do is they tell us that we are 
legally blocked from freely using our own computing devices. I think we 
would do well to focus on that type of ownership and not ownership of 
software.

Ownership of software really means ownership of copyright. And when we 
have a free software license, we are legally licensed under the owner's 
copyright, and the license grants us all the freedoms.

But this doesn't resolve how to better talk about proprietary software.

If we go with FLO, then we can say non-FLO. And one thing I like about 
that is that it makes FLO the default. But I'd prefer a stronger term.

In my talk, I focused on the economics of abundant vs scarce and open vs 
exclusive. And within the four types of goods, proprietary software is 
"club goods" which means abundant but exclusive. And it makes sense to 
use that language maybe.

Proprietary software is "exclusive club-goods software" or maybe 
"exclusive software". And if people ask, "what do you mean it's 
exclusive, anyone can get it", the answer is, "it's exclusive to those 
who accept the ads, the terms and restrictions, and/or pay the license 
fee; that's how you join the exclusive club!" Or in some cases, it's 
"access and use of the software isn't exclusive, but the rights to share 
and to adapt the software is exclusively reserved, so you don't have 
those freedoms. That's why it's still a form of exclusive software."

Some people won't mind that software is exclusive, but there's no simple 
word that can explain what's wrong without explaining why software 
freedom matters.

And as long as we talk about the exclusive club, we can also emphasize 
that there are certain people who set and change the rules for the club, 
that it's not democratic.

With this language, we are making it clear to people how to think about 
their RELATIONSHIP to the software and the software providers and the 
economics of it.

All that said, I think "restricted software" is FINE, that's a good 
option and superior to "proprietary" for most cases.

My inclination at this point is actually to prefer "restricted software".

So, I think it's good to have two terms that can be presented as 
opposing. "FLO software" and "restricted software" works well IMO.

Best,
Aaron Wolf

P.S. sorry if double-sending, strange Thunderbird glitches just now

On 2022-03-20 17:06, Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 00:58:35 +0100
> Valentino Giudice <valentino.giudice96@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I've heard "freedom software" too, but it's slightly weird. Surely
>> "freedom-respecting software" conveys the idea, but it is longer and,
>> I believe, less prone to being treated as a "technical" term with an
>> objective definition and a common understanding (which is useful when
>> the term ends up in the law).
>>
>> Why not "libre software"? It's already common, it's easily understood
>> by any English-speaking person (because they will know "liberty") and
>> better translates to other languages.
> 
> Well, "libre" is great too, but I get the impression that not all
> English speakers understand its meaning when they first see it. It's
> largely a translation of words from other languages.
> 
> The term "freedom" is well-understood by English speakers, and it is
> mostly unambiguous. Also, many people know English as a second or third
> language and in such cases, the word is still well-understood.
> 
> I'm sceptical about the term "libre", just because it's not the default
> word in English-speaking countries (freedom is the default word, for
> the intended meaning we wish to convey).
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: better terminology to promote freedom

[Yuchen Pei]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1184 bytes --]

On Sun 2022-03-20 23:49:20 +0000, Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I started this on twitter[1] and mastodon[2], but thought I'd also
> start the discussion here, where likeminded people exist who, I
> believe, can contribute to this discussion. My questions relate to
> terminology regarding "free software" and "proprietary software". Here
> goes:
>
> I've been thinking: what if we had a better term than "free software"
> to say "free software"?  Same ideological zeal, in an unambiguous
> fashion. This question pertains to English-speaking communities.
>
> I have decided to say "freedom software".
> Also: "freedom hardware".
>
> Thoughts?

I don't see any problem with "free software".  Software is like speech,
or knowledge, and where a "free" qualification should mean freedom.  It
is unfortunate that it has been interpreted as "gratis" by some people.

TBH there are more important issues to deal with in free software
movement than agonising over the terminology "free software".

Best,
Yuchen

-- 
PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040  4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0
          <https://ypei.org/assets/ypei-pubkey.txt>

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: better terminology to promote freedom

[Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1745 bytes --]


> I don't see any problem with "free software".  Software is like
> speech, or knowledge, and where a "free" qualification should mean
> freedom.  It is unfortunate that it has been interpreted as "gratis"
> by some people.
> 
> TBH there are more important issues to deal with in free software
> movement than agonising over the terminology "free software".
> 

Go on startpage.com, in a private browser window, with browser data
scrubbed, and search:

"free software"

Then again, "freedom software" also brings up interesting results.

In my search, FSF's free software definition *does* appear on the first
page, but the page is littered with links to merely gratis software too.

If I search "libre software", I do get links to a few projects, namely
libreoffice and librecad, but still, not a lot of good results.

Now search "open source". It has much higher quality results.

We need to gain household recognition, and I think we can do that by
using the term "freedom" while avoiding the term "free". Based purely
on looking at first page on search engine, "freedom software" and
"software freedom" already give higher quality results than "free
software".

The word "freedom" is unambiguous in people's minds. Think of it this
way:

If you're explaining it to someone new, and they're only half paying
attention, they're probably doing the verbal conversation equivalent of
"skim reading", picking up keywords in what you're saying. I think this
is most people, when we sell our ideas to them.

You need a strong terminology that piques people's interest, when
they're otherwise not inclined to listen. "Freedom" is a very positive
word that always gets a response from people, I've found.


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: better terminology to promote freedom

[Jean Louis]

* Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> [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
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: better terminology to promote freedom

[Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 580 bytes --]


Hi everyone,

The other day, I proposed the term "freedom software" as a less
ambiguous way to say "free software".

I've heard people's comments and criticisms about this, and I've
decided: I will not use it.

Instead, I will try to say "libre software" more often than "free
software". I will continue to say "proprietary software" when referring
to non-libre software.

I may say "freedom-respecting software", sometimes.

I wish to avoid confusion among new people, so I will avoid the term
"free software".

Thank you everyone for your comments.

~Leah

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: better terminology to promote freedom

[Preston Miller Firestone via libreplanet-discuss]

TL;DR: Testing search terms related to "free software" in duckduckgo"

This is a really interesting experiment. I tried searching several
variations on "free software" with duckduckgo; here are some summaries
of the first-page results, followed by some of my thoughts:

"free software" returned results recommending software that we would
call "gratis", like Photoshop Express, right next to software we would
call "free", like the GNU image manipulation program. Most of the other 
results are focused on software that can be downloaded without
paying, rather than software that respects the user's freedom. A
noteable exception on the first page is sourceforge, but their result
says "free open source software".

"freedom software" returns a few software products with "freedom" in
their name, but near the bottom of the first page is a link to the
Software Freedom Law Center's home page.

"software freedom" returns results including the GNU project, the Software
Freedom Conservancy, the Software Freedom School, and the Software Freedom
Law Center.

"open source" returns what you'd expect: sourceforge.com,
opensource.org, and several blog posts telling what open source software
is (including one from IBM) or listing the top N open source programs.

"libre software", again, returns software with "libre" in the name
(libreoffice, libreCAD), and the Spanish version of gnu.org. Duckduckgo
also proposes the wikipedia page for "free software" beside the search
results.

I think that Leah is correct that "free software" is usually interpreted
as "gratis". I, for one, spent years searching "free software" or "free
version of [program]" before I ever learned about the free software
movement. Indeed, I only found out about our movement through the open
source movement's marketing! On the other hand, "free software", to
those in the know, means something very specific; it's not worth
abandoning almost four decades of work because of an unfortunate
ambiguity. Indeed, "freedom" has become something of a shibboleth for
me: if the program isn't described as "free", I'll avoid using it.

Thanks for reading,

Preston


_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: better terminology to promote freedom

[Jean Louis]

* Preston Miller Firestone via libreplanet-discuss <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> [2022-03-23 17:22]:
> TL;DR: Testing search terms related to "free software" in
> duckduckgo"

As Duckduckgo recently clearly stated that they can and will
manipulate specific search terms to be lower ranked than it should be;
I can't say that this search engine is behaving ethically and that it
can be used as ethical standard for these measures you presented.

> "free software" returned results recommending software that we would
> call "gratis", like Photoshop Express, right next to software we would
> call "free", like the GNU image manipulation program. Most of the other 
> results are focused on software that can be downloaded without
> paying, rather than software that respects the user's freedom. A
> noteable exception on the first page is sourceforge, but their result
> says "free open source software".

When presenting results of an URL, then I recommend to post the URL
itself.

There is also difference if you used terms

- [free software] with quotes 

or 

- [free software] without quotes

Here is one example for "free software" with quotes:
https://searx.tiekoetter.com/search?q=%22free+software%22

And I get 5 examples of "free software" as in the definition from free
software philosophy, while other examples are not relevant. 

Though my result is quite different from your above described result,
I did not get any information about Photoshop Express for example.

In general I don't think you or we shall rely on automated search
engines to give us some standards of how words should be used.

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
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss