KVR Audio

Googly Smythe · Post by **Googly Smythe** » Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:25 am

Googly Smythe wrote:Software is not free if you have to create an account before downloading.
These accounts are data gathering services where a lot of profit may be made.
These "download" managers that are so fashionable these days, are also data gatherers.
To use them, or not, that's our choice. The people that use them are no better, or worse, than the people who don't.
Each to his own, and who gives a sh*t.

My argument here is that "free" should mean "free". (It's a kind of bete noire with me.

)

As for the data collection stuff... An example:

Image11.jpg

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:56 am

Googly Smythe wrote:
Googly Smythe wrote:Software is not free if you have to create an account before downloading.
These accounts are data gathering services where a lot of profit may be made.
These "download" managers that are so fashionable these days, are also data gatherers.
To use them, or not, that's our choice. The people that use them are no better, or worse, than the people who don't.
Each to his own, and who gives a sh*t.
My argument here is that "free" should mean "free". (It's a kind of bete noire with me. )

It does. It is free of cost or payment, meaning zero financial outlay required. That's a widely known and accepted definition of 'free'.

On the other hand, not a single known and accepted definition of 'free' revolves around the complete negation of any party making any kind of separate profit from the transaction. You might as well claim a plugin is not free if someone sells a song made with it, its that illogical a claim.

There are multiple definitions of free; 'no financial outlay required' is applicable, and accurate.

sjm · Post by **sjm** » Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:05 pm

The shocking truth: Lazy programmers making crap installers are ruining music.

You heard it here first.

sjm · Post by **sjm** » Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:11 pm

whyterabbyt wrote:...not a single known and accepted definition of 'free' revolves around the complete negation of any party making any kind of separate profit from the transaction.

Well, the "free as in speech" vs "free as in beer" distinction comes to mind. It's perfectly common in free/open source software.

And from a liguistic POV, the "free" in "free speech" isn't to do with it being zero-cost. So it's widely accepted that "free" doesn't only refer to cost.

A man is released from prison, and says "I'm five quid at last"...

funky lime · Post by **funky lime** » Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:35 pm

What's worse, entitled people who won't download a free installer app? Or people who complain about strangers' personal preferences on music forums instead of, i dunno, making music?

... Oh, crap, I'm one of the latter.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:07 pm

sjm wrote:
whyterabbyt wrote:...not a single known and accepted definition of 'free' revolves around the complete negation of any party making any kind of separate profit from the transaction.
Well, the "free as in speech" vs "free as in beer" distinction comes to mind. It's perfectly common in free/open source software.

And from a liguistic POV, the "free" in "free speech" isn't to do with it being zero-cost. So it's widely accepted that "free" doesn't only refer to cost.

A man is released from prison, and says "I'm five quid at last"...

You're entirely missing the point. Im explicitly stating that 'free' has multiple meanings; it's the basis of why Im saying that 'X means this isnt free' is false when X has no relationship to at least one definition of 'free' which applies.

If a plugin has zero cost, then it is free by at least one definition of free. That means it is not 'not free' for any and all definitions of free, and the fact that they might not fit some other definition of free still doesnt mean that they are 'not free' under some definition.

Without any context something can effectively only be binarily reduced to either 'free' under any definition, or 'not free' under all definitions; that's basic logic.

In this context, though, the 'not free' definition being used does not appear to correlate with any accepted definition of free. But that's the OP's context, one that he's trying to retrospectively superimpose over the original ones that are invariably being used when a plugin is described as 'free.' Under the context 'free' is being leveraged under, the definition used is clear, and the useage of 'free' is accurate.

In other words when a company Q says 'free plugin, registration required to download', its still a free plugin, no matter how someone tries to reinterpret 'free'.

And for the record, the 'free as in speech' useage doesnt preclude anyone making a profit.

sjm · Post by **sjm** » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:34 pm

whyterabbyt wrote:
sjm wrote:
whyterabbyt wrote:...not a single known and accepted definition of 'free' revolves around the complete negation of any party making any kind of separate profit from the transaction.
Well, the "free as in speech" vs "free as in beer" distinction comes to mind. It's perfectly common in free/open source software.

And from a liguistic POV, the "free" in "free speech" isn't to do with it being zero-cost. So it's widely accepted that "free" doesn't only refer to cost.

You're entirely missing the point. [...]

And for the record, the 'free as in speech' useage doesnt preclude anyone making a profit.

Of course, but my assumption is that you are debating semantics rather than listening to what the other person is saying. Which seems much more like missing the point.

I get both the points you and Googly Smythe are making; they are not mutually exclusive, because you are talking about different things.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:58 pm

sjm wrote:Of course, but my assumption is that you are debating semantics rather than listening to what the other person is saying. Which seems much more like missing the point.

What the other person is saying is predicated on those semantics... 'things should not be called free when they dont fit my own private definition of what free means'

My argument here is that "free" should mean "free". (It's a kind of bete noire with me.)

Just out of interest, what do you think his argument is if its not the meaning of 'free'.

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:44 pm

royosho wrote:
vurt wrote:nothing hurts music.
it feels nothing, only makes us feel.
emotions.
fleeting.
Trippy. Listening to "End of the Beggining" atm.

i do hope youre not crediting me with "ruining music".
believe me, ive tried. best i could manage was bending it in the middle a bit

funky lime · Post by **funky lime** » Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:46 pm

We are free to be pedantic here!

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:50 pm

whyterabbyt wrote:
Googly Smythe wrote:
Googly Smythe wrote:Software is not free if you have to create an account before downloading.
These accounts are data gathering services where a lot of profit may be made.
These "download" managers that are so fashionable these days, are also data gatherers.
To use them, or not, that's our choice. The people that use them are no better, or worse, than the people who don't.
Each to his own, and who gives a sh*t.
My argument here is that "free" should mean "free". (It's a kind of bete noire with me. )
It does. It is free of cost or payment, meaning zero financial outlay required. That's a widely known and accepted definition of 'free'.

On the other hand, not a single known and accepted definition of 'free' revolves around the complete negation of any party making any kind of separate profit from the transaction. You might as well claim a plugin is not free if someone sells a song made with it, its that illogical a claim.

There are multiple definitions of free; 'no financial outlay required' is applicable, and accurate.

Considering companies never release a plugin, which is totally "free", but, it always has a marketing background, as in simply showcasing their technology, for example, to advertise for their other products, i'd think "totally free" is an illusion. Nothing is "totally free". I don't expect that anyway, if god knows how many work hours has been put into the product. I don't like working for free either.

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:51 pm

sjm wrote:
whyterabbyt wrote:...not a single known and accepted definition of 'free' revolves around the complete negation of any party making any kind of separate profit from the transaction.
Well, the "free as in speech" vs "free as in beer" distinction comes to mind. It's perfectly common in free/open source software.

And from a liguistic POV, the "free" in "free speech" isn't to do with it being zero-cost. So it's widely accepted that "free" doesn't only refer to cost.

A man is released from prison, and says "I'm five quid at last"...

without going to hpc, free speech is upsetting me internally atm.

but, those meanings of free are not the same as when we are discussing a product or service.
free means, no payment. gratis.
no obligation on either party, either for payment or support (on the part of the purveyor).

thecontrolcentre · Post by **thecontrolcentre** » Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:58 pm

Googly Smythe wrote:who gives a sh*t.

Not me

Googly Smythe · Post by **Googly Smythe** » Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:01 pm

thecontrolcentre wrote:
Googly Smythe wrote:who gives a sh*t.
Not me

sjm · Post by **sjm** » Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:06 pm

whyterabbyt wrote:
My argument here is that "free" should mean "free". (It's a kind of bete noire with me.)
Just out of interest, what do you think his argument is if its not the meaning of 'free'.

That the only "free" lunch is one that doesn't comes with strings attached?

What Ruins Music: Installers or Entitled Lazy People?