🚀 go-pugleaf

Olathe wrote:
> Per Abrahamsen wrote:
> 
>> Olathe <Olathe@DALnet.irc> writes:
>>
>>> Why not call it "freed source" ?  
>>
>>
>> It implies that the source was once unfree, and make us sound like a
>> bunch of crackers "liberating" source code stored in computers owned
>> by vendors of proprietary software.
> 
> 
> That's a fair point.  Connotations ARE important.
> 
> Are there any words that are similar that don't have that connotation ? 
>  Maybe "unsilenceable source" or "ungaggable source".  These wouldn't 
> indicate that anything has been done to source that already existed (the 
> problem with "-ed" words) and would have the further benefit of showing 
> that the source will continue to be free in the future (government 
> crackdowns aside).  They also further emphasize the free speech nature 
> of the code.
> 
> Any opinions on these ?  I realize "unsilenceable" is a bit of a 
> mouthful and "ungaggable" might be a bit unbusinesslike (these 
> objections aren't necessarily fatal, though).  So, any suggestions ?

I think it s not a really problem about free software , i know somebody 
who don't really know what mean and confuse freedom as free as beer , 
but now there also other people like you understand the real meaning 
behind the word free , so just explain it for other and it s ok :)
that s all  , if we use a new expression for free software , it will be 
more confuse than now maybe (maybe not ;)) , you can tell the difference 
about free software and freeware and people can understand it .