The term “free software” can have a different meaning, depending on which side you are looking at. For many, in particular for me and most readers of my blog, free software means open source. For the world as a whole, this concept has a completely different meaning.

Here's how open source evangelists understand the word “free” in the phrase “free software”:

We understand Free Software as:

software that can be used, researched and modified without restriction and that can be copied and distributed in a modified or unchanged form with or without restrictions or with minimal restrictions that would ensure that further recipients of the product will have the same rights . Free software is usually available for free, but fees may be charged for storage media and other manufacturing costs.

Wikipedia
')

Beer analogy

Most users, in turn, think of Free Software as a free beer. For which you do not need to pay, but you can still enjoy it.

You can tell the customer that the beer is free and he can get a recipe to make it himself, or even improve it. But not every bar visitor will make beer at home. It’s nice to have a recipe, but the client is indifferent, he just wants to drink for free .
You could convince him not to drink another brand of beer, because his recipe is closed, but, most likely, our client will still be “on the drum” to it. He drinks beer for free .

Maybe only after he has enjoyed this beer will he think about finding a special recipe that you can trust. But right up to this point, the composition of the beer is not important for the client, since, as long as the beer produces the desired effect, it suits him.

Similarly with software.


Perhaps one of the most useful comics xkcd ( xkcd.com )

If you had a survey at a local supermarket, how many people would be using open source software? And how much would proprietary software use?

The answer in most cases is obvious. Proprietary programs lead. In the meantime, some people use open-source without even realizing it, or giving it a meaning. Let's take Firefox as an example: it can be downloaded for free , but does the average user suspect how free this program is? Or does he just click on the “Download” button?

Also ask yourself: why is this person using Firefox? Because it is a good program, and he got it for free. In addition, she has a good reputation. In most cases, everything else does not matter. The definition of good software is a topic for another article, but usually good, high-quality software is:

• Reliable
• Easy to use
• Safe
• Reputed
• And besides, the widely known *

* People - herd. If you see that someone is using a particular product, you will most likely follow suit. That's why companies use celebrities to advertise their products and why advertising on Facebook is based on recommendations from friends. (How often did you meet " 3 your friends liked [page] "?)

Which of these options would you like more:

• User pays for good software or downloads it legally.

or

• The user uses free software which is of lower quality than proprietary

?

I bet that the majority will choose the first option if the price of the program is appropriate. Remember, people want to pay for a quality product . In the end, our user is not particularly thinking about the openness of the program. The best option for him is when it is both good and free .

From the developer’s point of view, ordinary users do not give the source code such a value as we do. They care about what they can do with the program, and how much they need to pay for it. I use Skype, because I think it is better than XMPP when I need voice chat, and its use costs me nothing.

Most people do not see the essence of Free Software as we are, open-source evangelists. The sermons on freedom and open source are just one of many ways to get people to the evil side of free software. Without a doubt, you will convince a certain number of the most reasonable of them, however, in the end, the question of attracting the majority of users becomes a question of software quality . Free is nothing more than a nice plus.

How to make the user think about the openness of the software?

Do people really don’t attach importance to the openness of the products they use, or they just don’t know about the existence of such things? If the latter, how can we help people get acquainted with open source software?

There are many ways to solve this problem, and every day people switch to using free software, thanks to these initiatives. Incidentally, the Ubuntu LoCo and FOSS teams are a great start.

But the best way to educate people is to introduce them to a quality product that they enjoy. If someone loves something very much, he will certainly want to know more about it. (Example: if you like a new music band, you will probably climb into Wikipedia, read something interesting about it).

To capture people with this for a long time, it is important not to frighten them. Remember that for the majority of the population, technology is something unknown and new, and many are simply afraid of computers, usually due to the fact that they do not understand how they work. We are afraid of what we do not know.

If you suddenly replace a Windows 7 user with Arch Linux, no doubt he will never want to touch this computer again. Users need to be prepared gradually, sometimes you have to come to a compromise.

This is what Ubuntu is trying to do.

Someday, if a user loves a product, he will understand that the product he uses is of excellent quality not because of magic, but because it is Free Software.

If free software cannot meet the user's needs, it will use proprietary software. If free software will stand on its own in an effort to resolve problems with licenses or patents, it will be just great.

If a person wants to watch the King speak on a DVD or listen to his MP3 collection, and he does not succeed, then he will strive to solve this problem as quickly and easily as possible - for example, he can go buy a Mac.

So, in the end:

If the “Software” in Free Software is not of sufficient quality, then no one cares about “Free”.

The article was written by Safe Lotfi, a longtime supporter of FOSS and leader of the Zeitgeist project, as well as Benjamin Humpfrey, director of Ohso.