Summary: Highlighting of factual mistakes in the news and how they may affect perception of Free(dom) software
THE MEDIA either fails to understand or actually wants to misunderstand and misinform about Free(dom) software. We will show why this happens based on several items that we caught on Google News last night (and last night alone, so it's just a representative sample of a norm).
Here for example is a
new article that manages to 'stretch' -- to put it most politely -- the definition of both "free software" and "open source" at the same time: [
via The Source]
Alek Rollyson, a third-year in information systems and the club’s president, said there is a difference between free software and open source software. Free software is like “free beer, or free as in it doesn’t cost me anything,” he said.
Open source software is not just free; it is open for development.
Whoa. That sounds almost like Microsoft's distortion of the terms. 20 months ago Bill Gates publicly said: "There's free software [he meant gratis] and then there’s open source... there is this thing called the GPL, which we disagree with."
Regarding
this short interview from
usesthis.com, the Web site
Liliputing.com published the post/article
"Open source champion Richard Stallman’s netbook"
Whoa again. "Open source champion"? He does not like to be called that, and
quite rightly so.
Lastly, here is a new article defending patents and
stating:
With the slow (seeming) death of copyright, open source is being touted by many to be the future of intellectual property.
No, it's not.
"Intellectual property" is a vague term. Open source believes in copyrights (which it uses to defend and preserve the openness/freedom), not in mere patterns of code being a restriction on cost or use. Copyrights are sufficient protection for developers.
Here is
another new article that oddly enough mentions "open source" only for Macs, which are probably -- although just arguably, depending on definition -- the closest and most non-Free platform in existence (Mac OS X).
If people cannot comprehend free(dom) software, maybe it's because they are fed with disinformation. It is important to spot and correct such factual errors.
⬆
Comments
Robotron 2084
2010-01-27 03:57:30
Ask a FOSS zealot what free software is and anything that differs from the definition set by Stallman is going to raise a red flag. However, that doesn't mean the media is being biased, inaccurate, or deceptive. It just means the views of the zealot do not mirror that of society as a whole.
Robotron 2084
2010-01-27 04:34:26
Needs Sunlight
2010-01-26 17:28:17
Roy Schestowitz
2010-01-26 19:24:19
Dennis Murczak
2010-01-26 21:47:11
I usually try to explain the differences between the software philosophies as good as I can, especially the apparent confusion with "Freeware" and that it can be any combination of commercial/noncommercial/no-cost/paid, but they don't understand how the freedoms benefit them. Perhaps too many years of trouble-free software pirating have deadened them regarding such issues.
your_friend
2010-01-28 04:59:50
Widespread, fast access. Repositories are everywhere, so donloads are always fast. Excellence of code. The efficiency and quality of free softare can not be beat. No more worrying about viruses, lost files and work sucking "upgrades". Fit to purpose. There are few things you might want to do with your computer that does not have a thriving community dedicated to doing just that. If you don't like how those communities have done it, you can fix it to be just what you want. Freedom from spy and malware. Free software authors don't write anti features, unless they are working for Novell, Microsoft or some other company looking to screw over users with DRM and taxes.
Have fun with the FSF's nice German translations.
uberVU - social comments
2010-01-30 20:01:31
This post was mentioned on Twitter by schestowitz: Inaccurate Reports About #FreeSoftware and how they may affect perception of Free(dom) software http://ur1.ca/kpla....