With branding like "free software", it could have have lost the battle for hearts and minds for that reason alone, if not for all the other reasons.

Of course the public thinks "free software" is software for which you do not pay money.

And everyone immediately goes on their way with their downloads, without you getting the chance to give your hour-long spiel on "I'm glad you asked what I mean by 'free software'."

Because no one would ever ask what "free software" means, because they already know what it means.

It is the advocates who are terrible at advocacy who keep trying to give a term new meaning, and failing for a few decades to get the public to understand or pay attention.

You could even say that's the philosophical/awareness barrier, right there: people thinking in terms of free software, rather than in terms of Free Software(tm)(R).

(If you liked this comment, please subscribe to my newsletter about renewable clean energy, called Burn Fossil Fuels. My team has been working to get the message out, with a clever bit of wordplay there, in which we actually mean more the opposite of what we're saying. This is all explained in our hundred-page manifesto whitepaper, and we are also available for speaking engagements, at select events where we can preach to the choir.)

I really don’t like this comment but have to admit it’s pretty damn true.

This touches on something I've noticed the past few years - it seems to me many advocates of most topics often do more harm than good for their cause - taking hardline positions normal people simply can't relate to, even if they do agree in theory.

Anyway, on the topic of "free" software - how might you recommend we try to frame this to be more clear to the public? I think people tried to make "libre software" a thing, but doesn't that have the exact same issue - that is, that people will misunderstand what it is?