Linux is free. What exactly is 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? Beer is not free. When you go to a bar or restaurant you must pay for your beer. Linux is free to download and install. Perhaps that is what they mean? Well, the answer here is yes and no.

The free in Linux is short for freedom and Mel Gibson loves shouting this in his Braveheart movie. This relates to beer how? Beer is an end product. This end product can be sold or given away for free depending on whether it is made by a brewery or your next door neighbour. The information on the actual process for making beer is readily available and can be found just about anywhere. So when Linux advocates state free as in beer they are referring to the ability to make and do what you wish with beer.

The exact same freedom is there for Linux. The information on Linux processes are readily available and you can do what you wish with them. In fact, the licenses associated with Linux are designed to provide and protect that freedom. Linux distributions are the end product of the application of Linux information and can be given away or sold according to the whims of those who prepared the distribution. Generally the Linux distribution is free as in cost and support contracts are what make money.

So how does this effect the end user of Linux? Doesn't this mean that the only benefit is that they have a quality operating system to use for free? No, that is not the only benefit although it is the benefit most often hawked by Linux advocates. What this does mean for the end user is they have the freedom to independently verify whether the chosen Linux distribution actually does what is claimed and that there are no hidden nasties. For security related applications this is extremely important. The end users are also free to configure their system exactly how they wish by installing as much or as little of the operating system according to their personal needs. End users are also free to modify the system, either in house or outsourced, to suite non-standard applications. These are all things which Linux users have the freedom to do while proprietary systems deny such freedom.

Not just end users either. Programmers enjoy similar freedoms. They are free to delve into the deep and dark nooks and crannies of Linux source code and manipulate and modify to their hearts content. They may wish to learn how an operating system works on a programming level. They are free to make money on making programing modifications according to end users specifications. They are even free to use code that others have written in their own applications.

Yet freedom is a fragile thing. It is all too easily taken away by those with less than good intentions. To protect that freedom a license has been designed to, as much as possible, prevent the loss of freedom provided by the open source model. This license is more for the programmers rather than the end users although the end users benefit by the fruits of the programmers labours. It works by trying to ensure that, once code has been written and made free, that code will forever stay free. This free is freedom of information not free as in give away. The main aim of this license is to prevent those taking that code and using it without divulging what they have done. Thus intentionally removing the freedom of that particular piece of code.

This is how I understand what free is means when it is applied to Linux. What do you understand free to mean? Do you have another definition which you can share?