Oh hey guys check out our FREE project WebApe webape.site/ . It is free just tell your friends to use it. Awesome!
Sure...if you look carefully we only provide paid-for services...but hey the software we use is FREE and Open Source...
Should not be confusing, right?
BitWarden is also free isn't it? bitwarden.com/ I mean you have to pay for their services but else the software they use is "free" and open source, as in you can implement it on your own server.
So please folks, never say Bitwarden and the like are free and link to their services website. Say the Bitwarden software is Open Source and link to that source code. Easy. No more confusion.
Damn this world....the word "free" truly has 0 meaning and it is so loosely used that you can use it as a comma in a sentence and will have the same informational value.....
xantulon
in reply to Tio • •Bitwarden has a $0 option that does what a password manager needs to do, without tracking as far as I know, as well as paid options with more features. So "Free" is used here in the marketing sense of the word free
bitwarden.com/pricing/
Tio
in reply to xantulon • •Tio
in reply to Tio • •Liwott
in reply to Tio • • •@Tio @FediFollows
Bitwarden is the name of a free password manager, composed of clients and a server-side software that are all free and open source. It is also the name of a service that has various pricing plans, including a free one. So they provide not only paid-for services based on free-software, but also a free service, and the free software itself.
As you said, Webape only provides paid-for services based on FOS softwares, so it is a different situation.
"Free" does not have 0 meaning as you are saying, it rather has several meanings. It's called polysemy, it is a thing in most (all?) languages so you probably should get used to it.
Btw, I think it is better to link the original toot rather than only a screenshot thereof. Alternatively, since you are using Friendica, you can quote-share it.
Tio
in reply to Liwott • •Are we going to have an endless discussion again? The word "free" used to mean, well...free. "not costing or charging anything" merriam-webster.com/dictionary…
But then Facebook, Google and the like called their online services as "free" however they charged you something: your data and your attention. You traded those to them. Others used the word free to lure in "customers" to their paid for services. We call that "freemium" in our world. These all can be called trade-based. You are expected to trade something in order to get them.
... Show more...That's why if you talk about it as being "free" you should mention the source code and link to that, rather than to their paid-for (trade-based) service.
Are we going to have an endless discussion again? The word "free" used to mean, well...free. "not costing or charging anything" merriam-webster.com/dictionary…
But then Facebook, Google and the like called their online services as "free" however they charged you something: your data and your attention. You traded those to them. Others used the word free to lure in "customers" to their paid for services. We call that "freemium" in our world. These all can be called trade-based. You are expected to trade something in order to get them.
That's why if you talk about it as being "free" you should mention the source code and link to that, rather than to their paid-for (trade-based) service.
First: They provide an Open Source code for their client/server software. This Code is Open and is under a FSF criteria of use, or whatever license they are using. You are as "free" to use this code as they allow you, of course.
Second: Their 0 dollars subscription is a freemium subscription, a lesser version of their full software. Thus it is not free. It is a sample-size, a lure-in type of marketing practice.
The word "free" lost its meaning since it was abused by companies and individuals who use it as a bait to make people buy their stuff. Yes I know words have meaning inside contexts, I wrote a huge book all about language, but in today's society this context is many times associated with trade, as I explained, so it means the opposite of "not costing or charging anything". Thus making the word "free" meaningless.
I know about these but I preferred to do it the way I did it. ;)
Liwott
in reply to Tio • • •You link a page with 15 definitions, but it has to be the first one. Mind that it is not the first one in all dictionaries. And nothing indicates it to be the one original meaning either. I mean even Shakespeare did use it the sense of "unconstrained".
And I am certain you know that "free open source" provides enough context to deduce that it refers to the FSF definition of "free".
Mind to share your motivation? Isn't it more civil to give the original poster a right of response? And to give your audience access to the original post's comment section?
Tio
in reply to Liwott • •There they list 3 main ones, the rest are subcategories. It is a reason why the first one is first, right?
The word "free" is generally understood something is given without constraints. That's the generally understood context.
... Show more...I sure understand that. My point however is that the wording is confusing. And it is actually refereed to as "free software". Which is even more confusing. When I poke at this, I do so because of that reason but more because I want to challenge this notion that it is "free" (not costing or charging anything). Lastly, I want to highlight the meaningless of the word "free" and how it is misused and abused in many circumstances, like with the Bitwarden example.
There they list 3 main ones, the rest are subcategories. It is a reason why the first one is first, right?
The word "free" is generally understood something is given without constraints. That's the generally understood context.
I sure understand that. My point however is that the wording is confusing. And it is actually refereed to as "free software". Which is even more confusing. When I poke at this, I do so because of that reason but more because I want to challenge this notion that it is "free" (not costing or charging anything). Lastly, I want to highlight the meaningless of the word "free" and how it is misused and abused in many circumstances, like with the Bitwarden example.
You are too picky about every word I write I've noticed. I did it like that because it felt faster, easier, and I could highlight what I wanted to highlight. Plus, I have engaged with the original poster on exactly this and they replied, and I didn't want to drag them into another conversation. It was not about them, but a general view of the topic.
Liwott
in reply to Tio • • •No, there are 3 entries ("free" as an adjective, verb and adverb). The "adjective" entry has 15 definitions (some even have subitems). The definition you picked is item 1 in that list of 15.
If you want to play that game, it is second on Cambridge.
But please, let's not, what I mean is that there are other well accepted meanings.
I would say "without some constraint" is the most general of the accepted meanings. "Free as in freedom" does not contain the notion of giving.
Tio
in reply to Liwott • •True. But that's the main definition and the general agreed upon one.
And the first one is: not limited or controlled. Same meaning. Along the same lines.
If you call a piece of software "free software" but then you ask me 9.99$ for it, and afterwards you tell me it has this X license that allows me to modify and publish its code ONLY if I mention the author of the original software and under THE SAME license, then that word "free" should be at least written as FREE* . I get the context, but it is a shame they chose that words which creates a lot of confusion.
Tio
in reply to Liwott • •Take the "trade-free" idea. It is a lot more specific. It means if a good/service is trade-free that you do not have to trade anything to them, to the ones giving it to you. Do not give anything in return. Not your data, currency, attention via ads, do not have to give them a thank you and so forth.
It makes things a lot more clear, unlike "free software" that is about software/licensing and what you can or cannot do with it.
Look: The Sound Music Player. TSMP. Imagine this.
TSMP is trade-free. You grab it and no one wants anything from you. Do as you want with it. Share, copy, edit, use as much as you want, it is you and TSMP. Alone in the Universe :)
TSMP is free-software. You grab it from a website that has a download button. Great. But you also can grab it from behind a paywall...so you have to give your currency to the people behind this "free" software. Hmm...Alright....now you have it. Oh look, it has a(i)ds. The owner of the software wants your data and attention to profit off of you. But hey, it is still "free-software". Now you want to edit
... Show more...Take the "trade-free" idea. It is a lot more specific. It means if a good/service is trade-free that you do not have to trade anything to them, to the ones giving it to you. Do not give anything in return. Not your data, currency, attention via ads, do not have to give them a thank you and so forth.
It makes things a lot more clear, unlike "free software" that is about software/licensing and what you can or cannot do with it.
Look: The Sound Music Player. TSMP. Imagine this.
TSMP is trade-free. You grab it and no one wants anything from you. Do as you want with it. Share, copy, edit, use as much as you want, it is you and TSMP. Alone in the Universe :)
TSMP is free-software. You grab it from a website that has a download button. Great. But you also can grab it from behind a paywall...so you have to give your currency to the people behind this "free" software. Hmm...Alright....now you have it. Oh look, it has a(i)ds. The owner of the software wants your data and attention to profit off of you. But hey, it is still "free-software". Now you want to edit the source code and share it with your friends....but well apparently you have to publish it under the same license....Damn. So many rules for a "free-software".
All of the above can still be "free-software".
Mind you I am not against the free-software idea, they should do as they please, all I am saying is that the naming of it is confusing and they add up to the general gang-rape of the word "free".
Tio
in reply to Liwott • •If you do a search online for "free video editors" or free any-software, you 100% will get a massive mix of software that has free-trials, freemiums, software that is foss but only under a paywall, software that is free-with-aids, "proper" free software that is open source and does not ask you anything in return, and so on.
Mostly you'll find the freemium ones. On android or ios for example you'll mostly find that in their app "store".
I hope I made a lot of points towards "the word free has lost all of its meaning". And if you want to be 100% accurate I will rewrite it for you: "the word free has very little meaning in today's society". :D