How Open Source is slowly changing the world...
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
This thread can be used to post links/articles about companies/industries that use or utilize open source ideals to change the way things operate.
I'll start off with this:
http://www.h-online.com/open/features/From-open-source-to-sourcing-openly-1434057.html
Let's collect these articles and spread them around to other groups.
I propose to abruptly close this thread with this article: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
I am a member!
I had an experience at my local users group recently which is related to the
general misunderstanding that occurs when you refer to something as free
software.
This was my first time going to this users group meeting since I moved back
to Ohio. Naturally I brought along my dell laptop with a copy of Trisquel 5.0
running on it. As I met a couple of people and introduced myself I got the
all to common question "What version of Linux are you using?"
Being the polite person that I am and a newcomer, I didn't go on a tangent
about the fact that it is actually supposed to be referred to as GNU/Linux. I
proudly answered "Trisquel!" and he had never heard of it.
I went on to explain to him that it was a 100% free version of GNU/Linux and
is largely based on Ubuntu. He gave me a blank look and continue to tell me "
I didn't pay anything for Ubuntu" when I tried to explain to him what it
meant to be 100% free. I even tried to throw in the common "free as in
freedom" term but he still didn't get understand it. No matter how much I
tried to clarify that "free" has nothing to do with price he insisted on
informing me that he didn't pay anything for his version of Ubuntu "Linux".
I am not sure what the solution is. In America it seems like free is always
going to refer to price first, and freedom second.
I am a translator!
I sometimes refer to free software as to "software under a free license". If
you specify that the license (and not the software) is free, it might help
people to think in the right direction.
Of course, with proprietary software all you buy is actually the license,
since the developer remains the owner of the software itself. This way a free
license would mean software at no cost. But since it's a stupid concept for
trade, imo most people don't think about it like that.
I am a translator!
I propose to impose a script on trisquel.info that automatically changes all instances of "open source" in anything posted on the forum/mailing list into "free software".
Seriously speaking, there is nothing wrong with posting links to articles on open source. But every user of this forum should be educated enough to not call free software open source. Even if it is the language that the article uses that you are linking to. We have enough misunderstanding going on as it is!
I am a member!
The humorous part about this is that is the reason people are calling free software 'open source'. In English the word free is ambiguous and most people don't understand that when you say free software that you are referring to freedom. What is worse is that you will have people tell you that a distribution is free or a chipset supports free software operating systems when they require non-free drivers/firmware/etc.
It is much clearer to those who understand it if you say libre. There is no ambiguity. Although then the question is will anyone understand what you are saying?
Although I am a big free software supporter, I have to admit that the term itself just doesn't work. 99% of the population equates it with freeware, software available at no cost, and who could blame them. You cannot search for it in a search engine without being swamped by results pertaining to this common sense definition. It's unfortunate that the English language contains this ambiguity. In my native language (French), this ambiguity does not exist: Logiciel Libre. I understand where the open source crowd is coming from, in terms of rebranding the concept. The FSF should be renamed the LSF (Libre Software Foundation) :).
Although I am a big free software supporter, I have to admit that the term
itself just doesn't work. 99% of the population equates it with freeware,
software available at no cost, and who could blame them. You cannot search
for it in a search engine without being swamped by results pertaining to this
common sense definition. It's unfortunate that the English language contains
this ambiguity. In my native language (French), this ambiguity does not
exist: Logiciel Libre. I understand where the open source crowd is coming
from, in terms of rebranding the concept. The FSF should be renamed the LSF
(Libre Software Foundation) :).
I am a member!
The humorous part about this is that is the reason people are calling free
software 'open source'. In English the word free is ambiguous and most people
don't understand that when you say free software that you are referring to
freedom. What is worse is that you will have people tell you that a
distribution is free or a chipset supports free software operating systems
when they require non-free drivers/firmware/etc.
I am a member!
I had an experience at my local users group recently which is related to the general misunderstanding that occurs when you refer to something as free software.
This was my first time going to this users group meeting since I moved back to Ohio. Naturally I brought along my dell laptop with a copy of Trisquel 5.0 running on it. As I met a couple of people and introduced myself I got the all to common question "What version of Linux are you using?"
Being the polite person that I am and a newcomer, I didn't go on a tangent about the fact that it is actually supposed to be referred to as GNU/Linux. I proudly answered "Trisquel!" and he had never heard of it.
I went on to explain to him that it was a 100% free version of GNU/Linux and is largely based on Ubuntu. He gave me a blank look and continue to tell me " I didn't pay anything for Ubuntu" when I tried to explain to him what it meant to be 100% free. I even tried to throw in the common "free as in freedom" term but he still didn't get understand it. No matter how much I tried to clarify that "free" has nothing to do with price he insisted on informing me that he didn't pay anything for his version of Ubuntu "Linux".
I am not sure what the solution is. In America it seems like free is always going to refer to price first, and freedom second.
Even I have to keep going back to the FSF definitions if I think too much about the difference between open source and free/libre! It does seem an uphill challenge in the English speaking world to maintain this understanding of the difference.
Is it the same in Spanish/other language regions?
There are a couple different ways to explain it:
"Free as in freedom not as in beer"
or I kind of just came up with this one.
"You are free to study, modify, copy, and run the software any way you want" with a quick contrast to a non-free program. Usually you can use something that likely has malicious features. For example you could say as opposed to skype which you can't study because you don't have the source code so you have no idea if it spies on you. Even if it is gratis (don't pay for it) it isn't free.
There are a couple different ways to explain it:
"Free as in freedom not as in beer"
or I kind of just came up with this one.
"You are free to study, modify, copy, and run the software any way you want"
with a quick contrast to a non-free program. Usually you can use something
that likely has malicious features. For example you could say as opposed to
skype which you can't study because you don't have the source code so you
have no idea if it spies on you. Even if it is gratis (don't pay for it) it
isn't free.
Even I have to keep going back to the FSF definitions if I think too much
about the difference between open source and free/libre! It does seem an
uphill challenge in the English speaking world to maintain this understanding
of the difference.
Is it the same in Spanish/other language regions?
I am a translator!
I sometimes refer to free software as to "software under a free license". If you specify that the license (and not the software) is free, it might help people to think in the right direction.
Of course, with proprietary software all you buy is actually the license, since the developer remains the owner of the software itself. This way a free license would mean software at no cost. But since it's a stupid concept for trade, imo most people don't think about it like that.
> I sometimes refer to free software as to "software under a free
> license". If you specify that the license (and not the software) is
> free, it might help people to think in the right direction.
It's also possible to having nonfree software under a free license,
e.g. by tivoization, so the user cannot install a modified version.
(Some packages removed from Parabola are freely licensed while having
problems like requiring a nonfree compiler to build or using libraries
with incompatible licenses.)
Calling free software "software which respects user's freedom" might
avoid this confusion, but like with any freedom it needs educating users
that they could have such freedom.
I am a translator!
Tivoization is more about locking stuff down through hardware protection, it's a rare case and usually nothing you have to worry about on a PC. Dependance on non-free compilers or libraries is bad though, didn't think about it.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires