[zzalpha]

Yes, you're right, the word "free" does have specific connotations. Those include, but are not limited to:

- not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations

- given or available without charge

So, is the product free, as in available without charge, as implied by the clause "available for free"? Yes.

Is it free, as in not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations, something that is in no way implied by the content of the article? No.

Is your argument based on an excessively restrictive, ideologically motivated definition of the word "free" that does not fully represent how the word is used in practice?

Yes.

[nightski]

Except you are constrained by obligations. The obligation to pay a % of revenue. I mean I think the model is great. But calling it free is ridiculous.

[adventured]

It's hardly ridiculous when you consider where we just came from, the era of $250,000 - $500,000 source access engines.

You're not constrained by obligations if you choose not to make money with your product. So yes, it can be free of charge and free of obligations. Developers have to earn money somehow, unless you want Unreal to cease to exist. This model not only makes perfect sense, the product can absolutely be free in every sense of the word.

People whining about this are being ridiculous.

[nightski]

I wasn't whining. Just stating that it wasn't free - because it surely is not.

[fuzar]

It's conditionally free. If it were unconditionally free that would permit you to use the term without question or having people call bullshit. When they do call bullshit, which is to be expected, it's absurd to go around accusing them of whining and being ridiculous. Get a grip.

[pushrax]

Isn't "conditionally free" still free?

[fuzar]

Yes, but when you don't explicitly state the conditionality, and particularly so in the ad-line, then it's a version of free that one should expect to incite calls of bullshit.

Think of it this way: it's on par with false advertising which companies do get sued for. That's why companies make signs like "up to 30% off" and not just "30% off" (when only some items are 30% off). It is considered, by most, a mis-representation or false hood; a lie if you will.

[nightski]

Tell you what. I'll come work for your company for free except any revenue over 3k I'll take 5% of.

[vezzy-fnord]

not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations

Free software very much is subject to engagements and obligations, these being the terms of the respective license.

Is your argument based on an excessively restrictive, ideologically motivated definition of the word "free" that does not fully represent how the word is used in practice?

It's funny, because by your own statement, "open source" is also an excessively restrictive and ideologically motivated definition, what with OSI and FSF definitions being largely equivalent. For some reason I doubt you believe this.

When you're talking about software, you should not blame others for assuming "free" refers to the FSF definition, especially in announcements targeted towards technically inclined audiences.

[zzalpha]

It's funny, because by your own statement, "open source" is also an excessively restrictive and ideologically motivated definition, what with OSI and FSF definitions being largely equivalent. For some reason I doubt you believe this.

Why would you say that?

I actually explicitly believe that the FSF and OSI have coopted the term "free" in order to bend it to their own definition, while in fact espousing a position that explicitly advocates for licenses that restrict user freedom in very specific ways.

They, of course, happen to restrict freedom in a way that many folks like. But it's undeniable that, from the perspective of the individual user of software, BSD-licensed open source (for example) affords greater individual freedoms than that provided by GPL-licensed software, specifically because the latter is "subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations".

[dragonwriter]

> I actually explicitly believe that the FSF and OSI have coopted the term "free" in order to bend it to their own definition, while in fact espousing a position that explicitly advocates for licenses that restrict user freedom in very specific ways.

The OSI doesn't define "free" at all, it defines "open source" via the Open Source Definitions. The FSF defines "free software" via the Free Software Definition. Neither of these definitions restrict user freedoms, though the FSF tends to develop and promote licenses that arguably do so (the licenses the FSF's develops and promotes are not the only licenses it recognizes at fitting the Free Software Definition, which is pretty similar in substance to the OSI's Open Source Definition.)

[zzalpha]

Yeah, fair enough, I shouldn't have mentioned them (to be honest I listed them reflexively because the OP brought 'em up without really thinking about it).

[Dylan16807]

They don't restrict user freedom, they restrict distributor freedom with the goal of helping the user. This is a key distinction, because the end user can do anything whatsoever to the source code, no matter what the license wants.

[djur]

Since when does the OSI advocate for copyleft licenses, explicitly or otherwise? It was in fact founded -- and the term "open source" was coined -- in order to advocate for free software licensing separately from the FSF's ethical positions and promotion of copyleft.

[zzalpha]

Yup, agreed, my mistake.