Hacker News Reader

I'm a soon-to-be third year CS student. If I started to use the term "libre software" I'd be ridiculed to hell and back. I think you overestimate the receptiveness of developers.

I'm not sure how to interpret your reply in the context of what the parent is saying. Of course if it's not common to use the term then people will find it odd, out of place or maybe even pretentious. If some influential people manage to push it, eventually it'll be accepted.

If our industry as a whole managed to utter words like "cloud computing", "webscale" or "full stack" with a straight face I really think "libre software" shouldn't be that out of reach.

Sure, if a term becomes mainstream it's use is obvious. If you need to explain the connotations of a word in a lengthy forum post it's a pretty good indicator the use of the word is not adviced unless you are a tredn setter. If Elon Musk started to use the word libre software it might become a common enough term. If I use the word libre software I would have to first explain the word 90% of the time and become embarrased for an awkward and pointless use of an obscure term 85% of the time.

>If you need to explain the connotations of a word in a lengthy forum post it's a pretty good indicator the use of the word is not adviced

That is the current reality with the word "free". Pretty much every HN/Reddit submission on free software will have this discussion, with plenty of people disagreeing with the use of the word "free". Unfortunately, the usual response is simply a denial of reality: "Those who don't oppose the word 'free' have an ulterior anti-free agenda" or some similar sentiment.

I think the following analogue is apt: lots of people drink coffee in the post-Columbian world. When you order coffee and sugar most of the 8 billion people on the planet understand what you are talking about. However, if starbucks does not exist nobody understand what frappucino is. You can have the drink and have a very active internet group of frappucino afficionados, but despite the fact you know thousands of frappucinistas, still somehow the concept does not escape your internet sorority to a popular fame.

You've tried ordering the frappucino at the local diner, patiently explaining the merits of this fantastic bewerage, convinced by the zeal of your fellows that this thing is the best thing to happen to coffee bean ever. To no avail.

Or let's make this even more concrete. You are an english nobleman trying to order coffee in venice in 1614. No can do, coffee arrived in venice in 1615. Unless you know someone specific you cannot explain coffee to most people in venice 1614. In 1615 everyone knows, or think they know what it is, as clergymen banned coffee only little bit after it arrived...

My point is, you can have a very good idea but ideas don't spread by the merit of their goodness. I mean, we've know decades what we are doing to the biosphere but only now the large population is taking notice as shit starts to actually it the fan.

So people who discuss libre software fervently might be right, but that still does not mean you achieve anything by prosetylizing the concept to your employer.

Last analogue: You were stolen from Senegal and now are planting cotton in Georgia. A guy called Sam claims he owns you and will beat you if you try to leave. You are convinced slavery is wrong and that no one should be able to own another human being. Most of you fellow slaves agree but somehow you've failed to convince Sam and the rest of his farmer friends.

You've written a lengthy comment explaining the problem with using the word libre, while completely neglecting the problem with the word "free", which is what my comment is about. Attacking a position I'm not advocating is not fruitful.

We have a long history of using the word "free". The problems with the word are not hypothetical - it's there in the history - to the point that it divides the free software community.

Don't forget "serverless"

I personally will start using "libre" instead of "free" in relation to "free as in freedom" software. However, my comment was meant to exemplify the mentality I see at my university.

It's a mentality of "eh, it works". Of the, at this point, 50+ people I've talked to about software licensing about 3 put any merit in the libre approach. That's not scientific nor representative, but to me it's highly discouraging. Whenever my friend, who recently saw RMS talk live, talks about libre software I notice other students roll their eyes.

To be honest, I don't think most people, students or otherwise, are really even aware of what libre software and the GPL is - let alone think it's something worth investing time and energy into.

Oh wow, "full stack" is now not only unfashionable, but considered so ridiculous as to be laughable? "Cloud" I get, it has always been a nonsensical marketing term, but "full stack" at least has honest roots in the term LAMP.

I still provision my own Linux (VPS) servers, administer MariaDB on them and string it all together with PHP and sprinkle in non-trivial Javascrpt for UI and graphing. My company is profitable, customers are happy, and my software feeds 2 families well.

My methods are antiquated, sure, but if me telling people I'm a full stack developer is laughable/wrong, then I'm truly lost.

That's not what I was saying, I was pointing out weird or bombastic expressions that entered our collective technical/marketing lingo. Whether they are still relevant or not is not the point. "Cloud computing" is almost comical in its childishness when you think about it for a minute.

"Full stack" is a bit of a pretentious nitpick on my part, I actually hesitated putting it in there but couldn't resist. I'm an embedded developer who does a good amount of low level/bare metal work, so when I hear about engineering positions requiring being able to do basic Linux sysadmin + write some Python/PHP/JS/HTML/CSS/... referred to as "full stack" I always want to arrogantly point out that this is actually quite a long way away from the "full" stack. I guess it's just an other symptom of web technologies at large eating a huge portion of software development.

I always understood the term "full stack" to refer to a developer who has tried (and mastered some of) many different technologies and roles, including embedded, system, sysadmin, backend, desktop frontend, web frontend, DB stored procedures... It doesn't necessarily mean that such a person would be immediately proficient in a given technology (that depends on their recent experience), but given a few months' time they would produce solid code in any of these areas, and within a year they would be proficient in it.

In my understanding it has more to do with a person's ability to learn, or lack of fear from learning, if you wish.

Of course I have met my share of "full stack" devs (PHP + JS), but that's the same as with "senior" devs... Having a job title and being one is not the same thing.

Yeah, I consider myself "full stack" because I actively learn different types of software development that are outside of my current role, which is web front-end and backend (mostly Go and Postgres). I am proficient in s variety of languages, platforms, etc (e.g I love messing with embedded devices), and prefer to advertise my flexibility over whatever area I feel I am best at.

I've met quite a few who are happy specializing and essentially restricting themselves to a couple of technologies. When they call themselves "full stack", I get a bit annoyed, since I feel it should mean more than that.

So yeah, if you give me a month, I'm sure I can become productive in any given stack, and given a year, I'll be mostly indistinguishable from a specialist.

I had assumed “the cloud” comes from the visual shorthand of representing “arbitrary network resources somewhere” as an actual cloud in diagrams of networking systems. I recall this from early 2000s CS curriculum, predating it’s prevalence in industry marketing, though I’m sure it had been common well before then.

I never uttered "full stack" with a straight face. Actually, in the last interview I had with a CEO where he asked if I was a "full stack developer" I just laughed.

I don't get it - what's laughable about the idea of someone who can write both the front-end and back-end of a web application?

I know people who do that in practice.

Yeah, I can do that too. And a LITTLE bit more.

So what do you mean? That anyone can do this? I don't really know anything about front-end web development, so I couldn't do full-stack, and it isn't the case that anyone could.

I still can't understand why you think it's such a hilarious question that you laugh out loud about it?

Eh, I would absolutely say "yes" to that, and qualify it by what that means for me:

- practical experience with embedded devices - popular databases - web frontend APIs and common frameworks - popular backed platforms - Dev OPs and other types of automation

A lot of developers specialize, and relatively few branch out from that. I use the term because I don't want to be stuck in a single role.

Exactly this. It’s fitting that the term “full stack developer” came from the same guy that made geek merit badges a thing.

Most CS students aren't developers and haven't yet been bitten hard enough by bad licensing, in fact, they likely hope to profit greatly creating proprietary software. If you believe in something, embrace it, if you're right, time will bring people around. When it comes to "libre", the need for such a distinction is supported by thousands of real life examples, over decades, of users getting burned hard by bad licensing, even "open source" ones.

This is odd considering how relatively rare pre-packaged, proprietary software that makes boat loads of money actually is. CS students today are exposed to a lot more open source (look at what comes with a $5 hosting account) and SaaS, where the money is, today than 20, or even 10, years ago. Unless you're referring to games, but even the the big money making games make money on in-app purchases than with the sale of the software itself.

I disagree. It’s likely they go about almost all their day-to-day activities using proprietary (or at least not libre) software. Their primary OS (likely Windows or Mac), word processor, spreadsheets, presentations (Office or Google), email client, virtually every app on their phone (either platform). If they are in any non-CS, technical field, it is for sure using proprietary software (MATLAB, Autodesk, Adobe, ...). If they are in CS or a dev, they are probably using cloud platforms, GitHub, CI, an IDE, ...

Programming languages and code are so unique in being freely available, even the infrastructure around the them is proprietary.

Same here. I use libre software (perhaps with a tinge of irony). I don’t mind having a laugh about it every now and again. RMS himself is a pretty ridiculous figure.

And yet functionality, performant, et al.

How often do you use the term "free software" in the FSF sense?

How often does anyone care in the first place?

Why would you be ridiculed? (I could try to guess, based on what I've heard from some undergrads I've talked with recently about it, but I'd like to know the actual reasons in your case.)

I would use that term, but then I would do the rest of the speech in Spanish, just for consistency.

I considered this position some years ago, but concluded in the time it takes to explain that libre is a word from another language that means 'free in the sense of speech, not beer', I could just say I'm using the word free in the sense of speech, not beer.

These days I don't think the problem is the use of the ostensibly ambiguous word 'free', so much as that people (generic) don't really value freedom (or privacy) as much as we would like them to.

"Generic" people probably only come into contact with FLOSS principles when the plane reboots the entertainment center and they accidentally catch a glimpse of the Linux penguin in the boot screen.

On the near zero chance they remember the penguin and ask a free software zealot about it, they'd likely get an earful about how that is a symbol taken from the 2nd Presbyterian Church of Code, and please don't confuse that with the symbology from the 1st Presbyterian Church of Code across the street from it.[1]

The only FLOSS orgs I know that conceivably care about that generic person sitting in coach are Mozilla and Whisper Systems. And both are small time players compared to their proprietary competition.

Given that, it is extraordinary that normal people know anything at all about digital freedom and privacy.

[1] Just remembered that Linux is GPLv2 licensed, and that the religious zealotry would probably be about Linux not being GNU, but rather a "final" piece that was "good enough" to use in conjunction with other GPLvs licensed OS tools. So it's even worse-- this is like explaining to someone that they're reading the right book in the wrong wing of the right church. I love FLOSS so much.

What about “freedom software“? I know it’s grammatically incorrect but it sends the right message.

Speaking as an Australian, a “Freedom” prefix makes it sound like yet another cheesy American grab at patriotism.

(This may come across as snark, but it seriously isn’t. “Freedom” anything has been polluted, IMHO)

And considering the US Department of Energy just started labeling fossil fuels as "molecules of freedom" and "freedom gas"(no joke)[1] it looks like that only gets worse.

[1]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/us-department-of...

Right, like Freedom units. The temperature is 74F, the F is for freedom

Molecules of freedom?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/29/energy-depa...

Perhaps bytes of freedom?

Sounds like Australia needs some Freedom(TM).

Speaking as an American, that's exactly what I first thought too.

Fair point. For what it’s worth I’m British (but expat in the States).

I generally refer to the general cause/movement as "software freedom". I sometimes call the software itself "freedom-respecting software".

like the "molecules of freedom" or "freedom gas" but then "programs of freedom" or "freedom software" ?

Yeah the analogy I use is "Feel free to use my garage and tools any time you like, just don't take my stuff and sell it"

Unclear about "don't use my tools for monetery gain"

Actually free licenses do not restrict selling the software.

"Libre" is not an easy word for Anglophones to say, because the intense ambiguities of English orthography give you a few tentative choices of how it might sound (including having to attempt a French "r") and hints that they may all be wrong.

It's easier to pronounce if you're a romance speaker, but still not consistent, again due to the location of that "r." "Free" is pretty easy to say for everyone, and recognizable whether your "r" is a flap, is French, or is the English "r" which sounds like a humming engine.

Does it matter if you pronounce it wrong - half the words I use for internet things I'd never heard anyone say until I'd used them for a long time.

"my SQL" vs "my-sequel" (I use the former), NginX I still pronounce as "en-jinx", similarly GIF.

If people call it "lib-ruh" software it doesn't really matter as long as the meaning is conveyed.

To give the FSF some credit, they would have to go through a ton of hoops and PR changing their name to the LSF if they got behind the idea 100%. :)

Not that you are wrong. The "free as in freedom, not as in beer" trope has just gotten too tiresome. It's a losing battle. The only solution is taking control of the language, and Libre helps to achieve this.

Going forward I will give some thought to always using this term when appropriate.

On the other hand freedom is a really nice word that everyone loves whereas "libre" is some fake French or something that you have to try to pronounce with some kind of rolled r like is that really going to succeed in the American marketplace of ideas

It isn’t fake. Libre is a real french word that means “free to do [something]” or “free from [something],” along with a few other meanings.

I do think the pronunciation issue is going to hamper its adoption, though. If it’s pronounced as it is in French, it’s very similar to how we say the zodiac sign “libra,” but if you don’t know it’s french, it could easily be Spanish/Italian/Latin and be pronounced “leebray.”

The fact that it’s not an easy word to know how to pronounce means that people who have only read it will be hesitant to use it in conversation or public speech.

In fact, it is also a Spanish word, roughly pronounced "leebray" (in Italian and Latin it's different, though).

In fact, just learned now that it's supposed to be loaned from French, I had always assumed it to be from Spanish (I'm biased because I'm Spanish).

> just learned now that it's supposed to be loaned from French

Is it? According to https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

‘We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom’

Exactly. The "French Way" thing is an affect that's frequently mocked on other forums, see https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/le

I also don't like the term "free" in the context of money involved. I think it makes instant and, imo, associations in the brain that are not helpful for the project in question.

Rarely are projects of any meaningful size actually free. Someone is paying to afford the hosting/dev/etc. Sometimes that payment is in the form of donations from larger organizations. Often a mix of that and user donations. However I think it's important that we don't so easily undermine a projects funding. Especially projects as great as Blender.

I think I just long for the idea that we all recognized that many of these projects we use could do well with some basic coffee money from us all. Something somewhat like Github is setting up. $3/m to a project I make money off of means nothing to me, but from a couple thousand users it would be amazing for the sole project owner.

It's complex, I know. There's pros and cons to a lot of funding talk. Nevertheless, I just want to see great projects succeed. As Blender is.

Isn't it fascinating that the English language doesn't have a distinction between the social meaning of free and the economic, in that these meanings are meshed into the same word?

Every language has its quirks. French doesn't distinguish between ape and monkey (singe) -- the famous French novel "La Planète des singes" known from the various American movies in the original and remade "Planet of the Apes" series could just as well be translated as "Planet of the Monkeys". Similarly, German doesn't really distinguish between science and other academic subjects -- "Wissenschaft" can mean science, but also includes much of what people in English call the humanities.

I suspect there is a point you want to make. It is already a bit redundant to say that languages don't have perfect vocabulary coverage. In my post I was alluding to the formation of language corresponding to the formation of culture, and this specific case of English.

What does “economic”, in opposition to “social”, mean in this context?

Economic as in it doesn't cost money; social as in social/political freedom to do with it what you please.

Is it not free and gratis?

"gratis" is not a common english word either; you'd only use it to make this exact distinction.

Maybe if they'd called it freedom software?

This is the clear winner: it's cheeky, poignant, compatible with current acronyms, and pithy. Communicates very clear intent and doesn't confuse. "Libre" is the opposite of all of those things.

Adopting the term Freedom Software can be done by you, today, at no cost. Everyone will understand what it means.

Messaging matters. Call it Freedom Software :)

That's been claimed by "freedom fries" I'm afraid.

When you say Free Software, people will listen, because it sounds like free stuff for them. The speaker has an opportunity to clarify later.

When you say "libre software" people who don't already know what it is are probably done listening before you get a chance to make a point about anything.

I mean it is called the Free Software Foundation. Not the Libre Software Foundation.

To me free software means, it is free to get and free to modify.

Why so complicated?

But you overlooked the part that makes this complicated and sparks this whole debate. It's free to get and free to modify, but can you sell what you modified.

Wtf

When you say free software, you have to clarify, 'free as in freedom, not as in beer', libre doesn't have that double meaning.

Libre doesn't have a meaning at all, in English, so you'll have to explain that as well. In other languages that I know there is no such problem because the two meanings of "free" are clearly disambiguated by two different words.

The point is: with 'free', people might think they know what it means (it doesn't cost any money), 'libre' is context-specific.

In English 'libre' does mean free, but it means free as in 'free will'. It's not the same meaning as 'libre' in other languages. So it is confusing.

https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/107929

I don't have my OED to hand to check, I'd be surprised if it wasn't in there though. I had come across the word prior to my introduction to free software, I'd come across gratis also.

Not that it disproves you, but the only reference I could find in the online version is "vers libre", meaning "free verse", of course. I don't have a paper version to check, and I'm not a native speaker, so I'll have to trust you on this one :)

Offtopic, but I've been wondering where people are getting all this free beer from? Where I come from beer is quite expensive.

The problem is many people in the free software community enjoy confusing their audience and then take delight in pointing out their clever wordplay.

No reasonable person would decide that the best way to cut through a complicated overlap of a technical discussion a moral issue with many subtleties was with a pun, of all things.

free and gratis difference but English has two versions of free ie free and gratis..Libre is gratis

Are you sure? It's the opposite in latin.

Gratis as in without any associated cost and fri (free) as in without restrictions is the usage in Swedish as well.

Thankfully Estonian has the difference as well, without cost being "tasuta", with freedoms being "vaba".

Polish has darmowe (as in beer) and wolne (as in freedom). Ironically, wolne also means slow.