On Thursday 14 June 2007, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > I propose a new phrase to describe 'Open and Free' projects that > > don't approve of OpenBSD's policies because they are 'more > > stringent ... than others': > > > > 'They aren't free as in speech. They aren't even free as in beer. > > They are cheap and easy as in prostitutes.' > > I have been throwing around a phrase for a few weeks. Perhaps it > should be popularized. > > OpenBSD is free as in air. > > There, pass it around. Almost all the other software out there is > NOT free as in air. Instead, it is "free as in hangovers". Whatever > the fuck that means... but the analogy is no less clear "free as in > beer". >
There is nothing inherently wrong with a license which is designed to be contagious and force the release of source code (GPL) or other derivative works (CreativeCommons "share-alike" or more accurately "forced-release") but calling it anything other than what it actually is should be considered nothing more than a lie. Trying to manipulate the terms "Free" and "Open" is blatant dishonesty. Unfortunately, the majority of licenses and projects are intellectually dishonest and they try to manipulate these terms to make their sneaky, underhanded goals seem more acceptable to the general population. If you want a far more clear and accurate phrase, as well as be more confrontational, the phrase "Honestly Free Software" is a good alternative. "Free as in Honestly Free" will put the hammer down on all projects and licenses which are manipulative excuses for being something other than actually free. When you see a dishonest person saying "Free as in Speech" or "Free as in Blobs" call them a liar in the most loud and public manner possible. If you cannot trust a license or the people who use it to be honest, you have a good reason to not trust them at all. Lastly, I realize many people, both developers and users (and me), have a historical affection for the BSD license but I've always wondered why code is not placed in the Public Domain rather than being copyrighted and BSD licensed? Is the reason for this merely because it's difficult to "prove" a work is in the Public Domain, or (more likely) is there some other reason which I do not understand? In my admitted legal ignorance, a push for "Public Domain Software" (i.e. without copyright or license of any sort) might result in the most truly "Free" software possible? The wooshing sound I hear is probably a fast approaching clue stick. ;-) -JCR
