[BeetleB]

>Microsoft Windows is not Free Software.

Sorry, but allowing the Free Software movement to insist they are the sole proprietors of the definition of "free" is wrong. About as wrong as the people who are trying to co-opt the word "racism".

If something can be had for $0, it is free. Even with a capital F. That there exists other definition of free does not prevent people from legitimately using this definition.

[lolc]

You go use the word "free" however you want. And if you refer to software that is for free as "free software", expect to be misundertood.

[BeetleB]

>And if you refer to software that is for free as "free software", expect to be misundertood.

1. For the majority of the population, I will not be misunderstood. Only confusing for a certain crowd (FSF advocates). But that's a hole they dug themselves into, so my sympathies are wanting.

2. Let's be frank: Your statement applies more to people who use it the way you prefer, as opposed to my usage. If it weren't the case, then I wouldn't encounter so many people all over the Internet going out of their way to point out pseudo-clarifications.

Don't get me wrong - I'm an advocate of what you call free software, and am even a fan of the GPL. That doesn't mean I'll buy everything they push.

[lolc]

The original title on Hacker News here ended with something like "distributing free software". I took issue with that because it was about distributing copies of Windows which is not by any definition free software.

I wasn't protesting the general case, just this instance. If the title hadn't been misleading to me, I wouldn't have cared. I don't generally care about licensing issues around Microsoft Windows. Though this one is an interesting case.