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/