>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.
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.
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.