It's less confusing when you focus on the 'freedom of the users'.
Maybe that's the part of the message that's been most lost over the years. Focusing so much on free/libre that the group to which it applies (everyone (else), end users) is forgotten.
Freedom for the users is the empowerment to treat ideas and expressions of ideas as simply that. A restoration to the laws of nature which make the cost of copying an idea merely seeing it in action.
Yes, that brings hard questions to the table as well. However my answer to those is mostly that works covered as free/libre software should be public works. Common infrastructure that everyone is supposed to have access to. An open and level playing field for the advancement of education and the useful arts of science. They should also provide a useful platform for more transitory productions like games and videos.
People walking around with smartphones just don't think of themselves as "users of software," though that's exactly what they are.
It's unclear wording. It's also not the most immediate and intuitive concept for people outside the industry to wrap their heads around.
Think about driving a car. You're driving a car, you need to know about stuff like having a license and gas and insurance and so on, i.e. the things that a "driver" or "motorist" is generally responsible for.
Obviously, no license needed for having a smartphone, and all you really need is a charger to keep it going, which is part of why there's nothing nudging people to that conceptual leap of being "a user of software".
We could do better, but there's an industry-wide revulsion to finding the right language for communicating with your people, i.e. marketing.
I used to be a big advocate of "free software" as distinct from "open source," but after spending a few years in the marketing side of the industry, I don't give a shit at all about that distinction, because neither does anyone who isn't already drowning in the kool aid.
No, it's really not. If I'm an end-user who wants to do something, and you tell me that what I want isn't available for my own good (because anyone who built it would be violating my freedom), I'm going to at best think you're being disingenuous. And might want to punch you in the face a bit.
>It's less confusing when you focus on the 'freedom of the users'.
No it isn't. The entire purpose of the GPL is to restrict the freedom of the users. Public domain gives freedom to the users. Everything else adds restrictions. And it is all a big argument about which restrictions are "good" in the eyes of the people arguing.
Maybe that's the part of the message that's been most lost over the years. Focusing so much on free/libre that the group to which it applies (everyone (else), end users) is forgotten.
Freedom for the users is the empowerment to treat ideas and expressions of ideas as simply that. A restoration to the laws of nature which make the cost of copying an idea merely seeing it in action.
Yes, that brings hard questions to the table as well. However my answer to those is mostly that works covered as free/libre software should be public works. Common infrastructure that everyone is supposed to have access to. An open and level playing field for the advancement of education and the useful arts of science. They should also provide a useful platform for more transitory productions like games and videos.