[pessimizer]

How could we? Free Software makes it clear that when you modify the Free thing and productize it, you have to share the modifications with the public under the same licensing. What's there to argue about? You're either doing that or you're not. If you find a loophole in the text, then the license gets updated, the loophole explicitly closed, and everybody who agrees moves to the new version.

[jraph]

You are confusing Free Software with copyleft.

Free Software licenses and Open source licenses are essentially the same (apart a few odd examples).

The difference between the free software movement and the open source software movement is essentially philosophical.

[pessimizer]

> Free Software licenses and Open source licenses are essentially the same (apart a few odd examples).

Apart from every example of GPL software, which can't be used under the permissive terms of Open Source. The last person I replied to about this used the word "essentially" here, also. Is there a common source slogan for this belief?

Also, somebody should tell all of the people who keep rewriting GPL stuff in order to have an MIT version.

[ensignavenger]

The GPL qualifies as Open Source, it meets all the requirements of the OSD and is on the OSI list of open source licenses.

[jraph]

> Is there a common source slogan for this belief?

eh, no, but it's a quite common word to express that idea.

Also:

> for this belief?

> Also, somebody should tell all of the people

Would you consider you might be wrong here? We are several people telling you so.

[ensignavenger]

Non-copyleft licenses can also qualify as Free Software under the FSF definition.

[pessimizer]

This is a technicality. Non-copyleft licenses can qualify as Free Software because they can be easily relicensed into Free Software (as well as into proprietary software.)

[yejanll]

They qualify as Free Software simply because they meet (though do not protect like copyleft) all 4 freedoms. The relicensing is more of a secondary point.

[Ekaros]

Free is ambiguous term. It might be free in code and price. Or it might be free in price, but closed source. It could be free for me as private person, but not for business.

Is freeware free software? It is rather murky term for me.

[josephcsible]

The word "free" on its own is ambiguous, but in the phrase "free software", this is the single unambiguous definition: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

If it's just free in price, then "freeware" is the correct term.

[Ekaros]

Some one gave me a disc with software on it for free. To me that sounds like free software I received. Even if the code is entirely proprietary.

Or I download something like Irfanview for free from internet. That for consumer is free software to use...

It is clearly bad term when it can be used to mean entirely different thing in regular and common use.

[goku12]

That's entirely the fault of the English language. The same term when translated into many other languages (including my first language) creates no such confusion - because they have different words for free as in free beer and free as in free speech.

The point here is that that linguistic peculiarity in just one language doesn't make the word 'free software' invalid or unsuitable, as long as 'free software' is a recognizable term (which it is). This is why FSF makes this explicitly clear with an entire article.

[arccy]

based on current license choice of projects, turns out most people don't agree...