Comment by tbrownaw

9 days ago

> That doesn’t mean “free as in beer,” but “free as in speech.”

It occurs to me that this is a rather US-centric analogy.

I see it as English-centric, rather than US-centric. That differentiation isn't necessary in most (all?) languages.

Adopting the word "gratis" when the speaker means "at no monetary cost" also helps clarify things.

  • Would it be more correct to say it doesn’t necessarily mean free as in beer?

    Someone can give you a free beer and a complimentary license to manufacture and distribute that same beer, and even make changes to the recipe.

    • > Would it be more correct to say it doesn’t necessarily mean free as in beer

      Yes, I believe so.

Free Software should rename to Liberty Software. Instead, advocates loaned Spanish "libre" in the ugly FLOSS acronym (Free/Libre Open Source Software). If only we used "liberty" then we could stop quibbling over the multiple meanings of "free" and just talk about software liberty.

"Free as in bonus" vs "free as in liberty".

  • later, ... there are 14 competing jargon files.

    "Free software" is a fine descriptor. It's needlessly confusing to repeat that "beer as in slurred speech" thing, though. Free software can be free "as in beer"[0], but the way it gets said makes it sound like it zero cost software is an anti-goal, rather than pointing out that it's not the true goal. Then the "free as in speech" thing is kind of pointless because you can just say "free as in freedom".

    Free software is about fundamental computer freedom -- freedom to own your computer, inspect and modify, etc. -- we already have this word.

    [0] where who why free beer ever? 0% relatable, 0/10 would still like a free beer though

    • Newcomers keep tripping on Free Software vs Freeware, therefore "Free Software" doesn't describe well. We could call it Freedom Software. (There now exist 15 competing jargon files.)

      1 reply →

The current socio-political climate is actually making this analogy less US-centric by the day :(

edit: I'm specifically referring to people losing their jobs and similar retaliations due to being on the left, or making public statements that the current administration and supporters don't like.

  • It didn't start when it was people losing their jobs on the right?

    Brandon Eich's political donation comes to mind.

    • "People losing their jobs on the right" can, in every case I'm aware of, be reworded as "people losing their jobs because they oppose basic human rights for certain categories of people."

      Over the past few decades, and especially since about 2008, "the right" has become the refuge for every kind of bigotry (especially, though not solely, in the USA). Trying to defend that bigotry by crying about political neutrality is...well, to be polite I'll just say it's pretty ugly and leave it at that.

  • Its not just left. Right had to face this too. As a moderate, it's hilarious sometimes that one side would do something and when the other side does something similar, they are all up in arms about it.

    We should be allowed to discuss openly without being worried of losing job and humiliated.

    Right now, I cannot discuss openly. Majority are silent. And loud ones are a minority.

    Kevin hart losing Oscar hosting for a comment 12 some years ago. People who tried to cancel Eminem for his old songs and Rowan Atkinson's speech comes to mind on the top of my head.

    Getting offended is a YOU problem. Not a me problem.

    Until it's possible for us from both sides can talk openly, these will continue. Just like opposition political parties when one side is in more power, they will try and punish the other.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc

Ah, this is the first time I understand the analogy because my mother tongue has two different words for "free", so I did not realize there was a need to differentiate