How about "The GPL is free as in Gonhorrhea"? Strange how that didn't catch on.
J.C. Roberts wrote: > 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
