I've not seen any pushback on this particular topic in the realm of newspeak. Free has always meant free as in I give you something for no charge. But now, we need such disambiguations:
From
Free Software on WikipediawFree software may refer to one of the following.
- Freely redistributable software
- Free software, defined by the Free Software Foundation, is software which may be used, copied, studied, modified and redistributed ("free as in free speech"), but is not necessarily available for no charge
- Open-source software, similar to free software
- Free and open-source software, software that can be classified as both free software and open-source software
- Freeware, software available for zero price, but not necessarily with the rights to modify and redistribute it
- Free Software Magazine
- Free Software Magazine (China)
And when I say that my software is Free, because of the appropriation of the term Free Software by Stallman, people say that it's not.
Isn't that the same as the newspeak that the establishment practices? Re-appropriating known and well-defined phrases to mean something else?
...sorry, just a rant, as you give stuff away for free that has taken your time and effort to develop and people rail against you because you won't give the source (which in many cases you can't). But I really want to know where the demarcatory line is drawn on such practices.