Following on from my previous article, I wanted to say a few words about something that has been bugging me for a long time.

Regardless of the idealogy behind the terms, the term ‘Open Source’ is much, much more palatable than the term ‘Free Software’. If the FSF really wants to make some headway into promoting their viewpoint, and are insistent on rejecting the OSI, then they need a new term, and this is why:

Free has too many connotations. Forget ‘free as in speech, not as in beer’ – it’s a great tagline, but people won’t get that far. Free will _always_ mean monetary in their minds, and monetary freedom is, for better or worse, inexoribly tied with products that are not worth the money you didn’t pay for them. Open Source is, at least, a better descriptive term. Additional, it is a ‘new’ term to most people, and thus requires explanation, and won’t be hindered by assumption. The term ‘Free Software’ has neither benefit.

For what it’s worth, I really don’t care what the term is, and this isn’t a rant about not agreeing with the FSF idealogy. This is a matter of practicality and (to use another word with negative connotations) marketting.

mrBen

For a post that ends with “this isn’t a rant about not agreeing with FSF ideology” you certainly picked a poor title for it!

Good post. I’d agree with you; I can respect the ideology of rms/fsf (though I occasionally think he sounds a bit wacky when he talks about my freedom being restricted by Java, or something ) — but you’re right: to 99.9% of the people who hear it, “free” means “no money.” And like you said, usually implies “not worth anything.”

They could invent a new term… but I think “Open” works pretty well already.