That’s a question I would like to ask everyone reading this right now. The people within the Free Software Foundation are great. They’re awesome. They believe in freedom, and I can go for that. I too do not like it when other companies try to not only say that I am only leasing their software, but that I can not look at and modify the source code nor distribute the software to other people. I like sharing. I do. However, when I think Free Software, I know that others are mistakenly thinking freeware. Freeware is of course proprietary software that does not cost money, but licensing restrictions are placed onto the user.
The two can be easily confused, as well as the usual ad hominems:
It must not be worth it?
You get what you paid for.
It’s probably shoddy.
People are conditioned to equate the word free with “no money needed” and nothing more. What if a new term is coined that would not only explain how a person would not necessarily have to pay money for software, but also have the liberty to share it with others and view/alter the source code? Ladies and gentlemen, I propose calling Free Software….
What do you think?