But we should always add, that the "freedom" we refer here to is actually "freedom-as-defined-by-RMS". It doesn't match what the word normally means; RMS made up a definition of what he thinks is software freedom, and some people happen to agree with him. Then there is another big group of people who don't.
RMS has also often said that software freedom is just a synonym for software liberty, ie that those have exact same meaning and that the only reason he use the word freedom instead of liberty is that the United States has a political platform which the American people associate with the word liberty, and RMS wanted to disassociate the free software movement from US politics so to not alienate the other side of the political spectrum.
Who made up the definition of Liberty? Not RMS. Was he first to use Freedom as a synonym to Liberty? I doubt it. It is imperfect but both words is commonly used interchangeable when talking about the philosophical concept of freedom and liberty so the question I have is why the distinction is important?
It is like the difference between liberty with right to dissent and one without. System with laws vs system that is strictly case based.
FSF definition was made strictly to prevent embrace, extend, extinguish actions (especially the last) and GPL was improved over time to close holes that allow this. (Affero, GPL3)
Why doesn't it mean what the word normally means? "Software Freedom" was coined by Stallman and the FSF ("free software" might have been around before).
It's also not uncommon to use the term freedom as "free in all aspects but this set of restrictions", it's not equivalent to anarchy.
Because for example someone could say: "Software freedom means that I am free to use the software, so freeware follows software freedom, regardless if the source code is open or closed, because I don't care about that."
Of course I don't say that this is better definition as that coined by RMS, but he just arbitrarily chose what is software freedom and what is not. If you step outside of his worldview, there is no intrinsic reason why exactly his chosen attributes should constitute software freedom. He considers his definition as some axiom, and doesn't care that it isn't an established common understanding. Or in other words, he forces his opinions as truths.
An American man and a Soviet man are arguing about which country is better. 'At the end of the day, I can march into the oval office, pound the President's desk and say "Mr. President I don't like the way you are running this country."', says the American. The Soviet man replies, 'I can do that too. I can march in to the Kremlin, pound the General Secretary's desk and say "Mr. Gorbachev, I don't like the way President Reagan is running his country!"'
Also, your "someone could say" example is only possible because english mixes up the words for free and gratis (not that FOSS software might very well be very expensive).
> but he just arbitrarily chose what is software freedom and what is not.
Nope, that is not how words work. He simply coined a short phrase for his "four freedoms" movement.
This reminds me of people arguing that Doom can be called an Adventure game because you are going though an adventure in the game or that Half-Life is an RPG because you are filling in for the "role" of Gordon Freeman :-P. In other words, people trying to come up with explanations for words that make up a term.
The "Free" in Free Software refers to the software itself being free from the shackles of any programmer or company trying to keep it under control - specifically controlling who can use it and for what reason (edit: to clarify, this doesn't imply that Free Software and Copyleft are the same, Free Software can still be "caught"/"trapped" in a proprietary product due to its permissive license).
Of course people may try and use "Free Software" to mean "software that has no price", but people apply labels and terms wrong all the time, that doesn't make them right.
> Of course people may try and use "Free Software" to mean "software that has no price", but people apply labels and terms wrong all the time, that doesn't make them right.
Yes, but why do you think it is "wrong"? :-) Because it is the same opinion as RMS holds? It is only a matter of definition, IMHO.
"Liberty software is software that has no price" is obviously wrong. Just like "free speech" does not mean radios have to broadcast whatever you say at no cost.
> It is only a matter of definition, IMHO.
Language may change over time, but if you want to use "free speech" to mean "speech that has no price" I would certainly tell you that you are using the term wrong.
