Free Software Is About Freedom...Not Cost!

So there still seems to be a sizable portion of the free and open source community that still doesn't know what "free software" or "open source software" actually mean. Neither term has anything to do with the cost of the software. In fact, price is not a factor at all!

REFERENCED:

WANT TO SUPPORT THE CHANNEL?

DT ON THE WEB:

FREE AND OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE THAT I USE:

Your support is very much appreciated. Thanks, guys!

[ArturdeSousaRocha]

That's why some people tried pushing the term "libre" instead. It didn't catch on but it better reflected the liberty aspect in "freedom".

[shApYT]

You can still build it from source and fork it. That's what free software is.

[PopsSinging]

You make an excellent point. The term "freeware" has been commonly associated with software that costs nothing for so long that many people automatically assume that "free" in "free and open-source" software (FOSS) means "no cost" in the financial sense. The reality is that when most people hear "free" and "open-source, " they naturally think of software that’s both cost-free and allows access to the source code. The average person probably wouldn’t ask about any hidden costs once they hear "free" and "open-source, " because the plain meaning of those words suggests zero cost. Louis Rossman recently pointed out the fact that companies are always redefining common words to not mean what most people think they mean, like 'buying' doesn't really mean 'owning'. Maybe calling the software 'freedom and opensource software' or something similar might clear up some of the confusion.

I’ve been in IT for over three decades, and from my experience, this is a very common misconception. The issue is that, while the software may indeed be available at no charge, "free" in the context of FOSS often refers to freedom—the freedom to use, modify, and distribute the software—not necessarily to the cost.

[AsmrFuns]

I think a big contributor to the confusion and misunderstanding is that 90% of this stuff IS free, so when people come across that rare 10% of software that isn’t free, they suddenly grab the torches and pitchforks.

It also doesn’t help that most beginner friendly Linux content creators such as on YouTube whose sole purpose is to get people away from Windows always uses the free as in price argument to incite them to ditch their expensive OS and software and come over here where everything is “free” and doesn’t cost a dime.

[nealthompson]

Right on DT! I had replied to one the complaints from the prior video with my "Free" vs. "Free" comment, but was not 100% confirmed about what I had stated there, but as it turns out, I had it exactly correct. Thanks for that clarification DT.

[JPs-qo]

Why oh why Richard Stallman didn't opt to call it Freedom Software instead of Free Software to avoid this exact confusion is beyond me.

[diotitus]

Yea I agree with DistroTube here. There is nothing wrong with a developer charging for software (open source or proprietary) and/or for a user to pay for good quality software. The problem lies in where the developer tells you what you can or can't do with your copy of the software after you purchase it.

[OmnisR]

One good example of freedom software is video games. Modern games, including console ones have DRM -Digital Rights Management that basically reach out over the internet to the home server to check that “this is a legit copy of the game”. If the DRM check cannot be done the game wont let you play, even tho you paid for it. DRM is a system for control despite the fact that the customer had paid to own it. DRM is present in both multiplayer and single player games these days, and gamers are essentially buying a license, not the game itself.

DRM-free games is free software as in freedom software. You are free to modify the game, make endless amount of copies of the game, share the game, and install the game on different computers. Store the game on external drives as if it is on a DVD. And you only have to paid once, own forever.

[DiegoLinux-bu]

Glad to hear. I'm new to " free and open source".
I'm going to be a bit more grateful from now on when using free software.

[iwanttoramble]

i use the term "libre software". harder for people to misunderstand

[TheNoirKamui]

If you have a job and you used and loved a linux distribution at least a year, and you never donated at least 5$ to it, that is a really sad and unfortunate example of the world we live in. Those are the people that are holding humanity back.

[warthunder]

Totally agree here. Here's the thing: I don't care for Steve personally in my interactions with him, and I don't like his distro. Is anybody holding a gun to my head to buy it? NO! Because nobody would do that. You're not forced to pay for things absolutely but you can go use something else. AND if I wanted his distro without cost, the source code is out there freely available to compile and make your own ISO for free! I do say I'd rather donate to a project rather than pay directly for something but pay walling the binary is not against the GPL. People are crazy lol

[helloimatapir]

What's worse is the entitled users who think FOSS developers have to be on call to answer their support questions, or that they need to add X feature to their software. FOSS developers are under no obligation to help you with anything. Don't like that? Fork the code and figure it out yourself.

[XeroLinux]

Thanks Derek for this. You shouldn't have. Unfortunately this might still fall on deaf ears. Thus who are convinced they are right and everyone else is wrong will not change their mind.

However now we got a video to share with them...

[MrMaxRiley]

4:02 the source code doesn't have to be publicly available, it just has to be made available to the person the software is distributed to. Also, source code can be paywalled. Red Hat does this and they're in compliance with the GPL v2.

[saksaelectronicsconsulting]

Analogy. Forest berries can be freely gathered by anyone here in Finland and they can sell the berries they have gathered (ofc not from someone's strawberry field). IIRC it's also tax-exempt but that may be besides the point of charging from free software packages you make. Fishing is another one, although a licence is often required to fish.

[kjyu]

free of charge is just a (probably inevitable) side effect in many or most cases

[derJimno]

Shout-out to Paul (primary author of Ardour) and all the contributors for making that piece of Software (DAW). I think that people just forget the value of FOSS because they think, the only income here should be donations (which is a foolish mindset). Those programmers are working hard and the products deserve the price. we should sometimes pay for a FOSS just like we pay for a video game in Steam or wherever...

[alfkh]

Absolutely right DT! the analogy i always use is can u do everything your custodian or domestic helper can do? ie sweep / mop the floor, do the laundry, clean the bath rm, cook & clean the dishes, take out the paper & the trash? You probably can unless you're missing the use of 1 of your limbs or hv some other handicap. So y don't you? For most ppl, the reason is laziness, but for others, its efficiency. 1 can pay someone $4/hr to do 1h of domestic work. In the same time, 1 can make $4million. So for those who make only $3, 999, 996, maybe you might find it worthwhile 2 download the source code & do all that yourself?

[BerserkerMomon]

I think it’s ok to charge money for extra work done to free software so long as they charge an appropriate amount for what they worked on. If someone were to charge, for example, an equivalent price to other paid proprietary software just for minor modifications to free software; that would be wrong because they would essentially be trying to profit off the labor of others.