With Independence Day coming up, I want to do a series of posts about freedom and what "free software" actually means. The English language is weak in the area of freedom, so when somebody says "free software" they think "free of charge" or "gratis" (to use the Latin term for the concept), which can really throw you, since most free software is available to anyone without monetary cost.

Totally ignoring the fact that this type of news is becoming the new norm everywhere but in the US, it does present a very serious question - how does Microsoft compete with free?

People use this as one of the biggest drawing cards for advocating Linux. It is free they say, free as in beer, free as in cost, free free free. But what exactly do they mean by free?

Microsoft's recent survey proclaimed nearly half the population believe it is ok to use pirated software for personal use. This diminishes the argument by Linux advocates that you can use their operating system without any cost. Yet, you can't confuse free as in cost with free as in freedom. Here's what FOSS really means.

Have you searched for Linux distributions that are 100% free? Did you find more than one that suited your needs? Well, here's a list of nine from which you can choose your favorite. Free means freedom to alter, redistribute, sell or release as a different product with no restrictions on you or your new distribution.

I have a podcast—The Beer Crate, since you asked—which is written and produced using free software, and released under the CC by-nc-nd license. It’s a fun little hobby that keeps me off the street, and gives me an excuse to drink and review beer. But had free software not existed, how much would it cost to produce and host a show using proprietary software? I set out to investigate…

What if Linux were not free? Would people still use it? Would it generate as much excitement online? What if the right…no, the privilege…to use Linux came only at a monetary cost money? And that’s a lease, not a sale mind you. What if the product was not intellectually free? How many people would jump on the bandwagon then?

"..RMS’s other mission here is to promote the Free Software Movement. The creator of the GPL...is at pains to correct misunderstandings of what the term free software means and to draw a distinction between it and the open source movement.

It seems the author didn't understand the philosophy of free software. Free software is about freedom. Think free speech, not free beer. Feel free to explain it in comments... -- via http://linuxaucoin.blogspot.com/2008/04/free-software-festival-this-satu...