Skip to main content


Oh hey guys check out our FREE project WebApe https://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? https://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.....

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

https://bitwarden.com/pricing/
in reply to xantulon

They limit the features of it https://bitwarden.com/pricing/ - they should call it money free maybe for that 0$ plan. This is a standard marketing scheme, provide a "free" version of your software and limit it, to then make people pay for it later on. I won't consider this trade-free.
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.
in reply to Liwott

in reply to Tio

The word "free" used to mean, well...free.
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".
Yes I know words have meaning inside contexts
And I am certain you know that "free open source" provides enough context to deduce that it refers to the FSF definition of "free".
I know about these but I preferred to do it the way I did it. ;)
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?
in reply to Liwott

in reply to Tio

There they list 3 main ones, the rest are subcategories
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.
It is a reason why the first one is first, right?
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.
The word "free" is generally understood something is given without constraints.
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.
in reply to Liwott

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.
True. But that's the main definition and the general agreed upon one.
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.
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.
in reply to Liwott

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". 😁