> but the reason for your success is that you've found a clever way to do something that no one has thought of yet
If you are in this situation, you do not have free software.
The difference between free software and open source is the perspective. Open source comes from the perspective of the vendor. Free software comes from the perspective of the user.
Free software is about freedom for the user, everything else builds upon this first principle. It is possible that the licenses have defects. The license is an artifact. The four essential freedoms are the business requirements on which the licenses are built in top of:
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms
> If you are in this situation, you do not have free software.
For some things, people eventually realize their advantage over keeping the rights is outweighed by making whatever you've done widely available.
The PDF format is another great example and we've seen a number of apps come up to supplement the core tech or implement features that Adobe doesn't care about but someone finds useful.
It is not the case that the words "free software" are defined by the FSF or GNU.
This is good old fashioned Orwellian language control. Many things are genuinely free software that do not fit the FSF's "definition."
They are not an authority on the language or all software.
Much of my software costs $0. That makes it free. I do not follow the FSF's demands. It is still free software, even though you found a link with a bullet list that says things.
None of these "essential freedoms" actually are essential to anyone but FSF people.
I'd call that gratuit software rather than libre software.
Using a most descriptive language sidesteps the English conflation of free and free.
North Korea is a very free country. Everything is gratuit, but it's not a free country at all, no libre
> It is not the case that the words "free software" are defined by the FSF or GNU.
If the FSF changed their definition to something that made absolutely no sense, then sure, the software community would rightly reject it. Until then, it's useful to have a clear definition for a term-of-art.
> Much of my software costs $0. That makes it free.
A car is heavy. A car is a machine. A car is not heavy machinery.
If you wish to refer to software that is made available at no charge but is not Free Software, you can use the term freeware.
Yes, the terminology is quite annoying on account of the two meanings of free, but we're stuck with it. This happens in many different fields.
> I do not follow the FSF's demands. It is still free software, even though you found a link with a bullet list that says things.
It is unhelpful to deliberately make non-standard (i.e. incorrect) use of accepted terms. It isn't about demands and agendas, it's about clear communication. To copy from an old comment of mine: [0]
In aviation, flap is a precise term-of-art, and is never used interchangeably with aileron, despite that an aileron is plainly a kind of flap (in the colloquial sense). If you adopt your own definition of flap, to refer to both flaps and ailerons, no-one is going to sue you, but no-one is going to know what you're talking about. Your use of the term will be considered not merely different, but wrong.
On the other hand, you could try telling a physicist that you consider the words power and force to be interchangeable. They're not going to sue you, but they're also not likely to entertain your deliberate misuse of standard terms.
On the third hand, you could try insisting to a soldier that machine gun refers to all automatic weapons, rather than to a specific subcategory. They will inform you that they are aware of this colloquial use of the term, and that their more precise use of the term remains a standard, and reasonably clear, term-of-art.
In no instance is there any question of Orwellian control.
See also similar discussion of the term Open Source [1].
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25835994
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25372630
> If the FSF changed their definition to something that made absolutely no sense, then sure
No.
The FSF does not have "their definition" of common words and phrases that predate them by decades.
This just doesn't belong to them. Period, full stop.
.
> A car is heavy. A car is a machine. A car is not heavy machinery.
That's nice.
This phrase meant what it said on its face for 30 years before Stallman showed up with an editor he stole and an operating system he stole.
He's not stealing the phrase, even though you can show compound terms that break down to unrelated simple sentences.
.
> It is unhelpful to deliberately make non-standard (i.e. incorrect) use of accepted terms.
Yep. And that's what the FSF did.
The term predates them by almost 40 years, and is mostly used by other people in ways that are incompatible with them.
As an issue of fact, GPL/LGPL/AGPL use by project count is now below 10% of free software licenses, and as an issue of fact, the other free software licenses that the FSF has decried "not truly free" continue to ignore them and chuckle.
And I see you, from the radical minority, insisting that your viewpoint is the standard, and accepted.
Not really, is the thing. There's evidence, and it does not support you.
.
> In aviation,
These constant attempts to point to other things and insist their structure informs this discussion, while placing a mistake in someone else's mouth and and then correcting it, are pointless and tedious.
.
> On the other hand, you could try telling a physicist
These constant attempts to point to other things and insist their structure informs this discussion, while placing a mistake in someone else's mouth and and then correcting it, are pointless and tedious.
.
> On the third hand,
That's pronounced "gripping."
.
> you could try insisting to a soldier
These constant attempts to point to other things and insist their structure informs this discussion, while placing a mistake in someone else's mouth and and then correcting it, are pointless and tedious.
.
> In no instance is there any question of Orwellian control.
I'm sorry that you failed to understand my meaning.
.
> See also similar discussion of the term Open Source
I am not interested in an HN attempt to redefine terms either.
It's really weird that you say "It's not Orwell, now watch me define the term against you"
I'm not sure I think you've actually read the book
Have a day