Talk:free

Unconstrained
Several of these definitions (ie "Unconstrained") are unfortunately common usage. A better word for these meanings is license, where one definition is "Excessive freedom; lack of due restraint. When liberty becomes license dictatorship is near, Will Durant"

Apiryon (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC) We are assuming here that all the meanings of the word "free" share an etymological origin.

Free as in "without cost" may not have the same origin as free meaning "without constraint."

For the latter meaning in particular, there may be a connection to the P-R root which in Hebrew and I would assume other languages of the region means to bear fruit, blossom, spread out, separate, etc.

At least, some attempt could be made to validate the idea that these share a common origin.

Apiryon (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

software libre
I am unwilling to make the edit myself as it is controversial, but it should be noted that most proponents of free software would argue the point that it is totally without limitations, not merely without as many limitations as proprietary software. It could also be argued that this definition is severely lacking, as it does not mention the Four Freedoms implied by common usage in the industry.


 * The hard part is having some evidence that the word is being used as you say and not in the more broadly accepted senses from sources that meet our standards, durably archived, independent, etc. Please feel free to provide citations, preferably on the citations page, that illustrate the sense you propose. We are fairly good about including things promptly once we see signs that they are really entering the language. Language is a system of conventions that is inherently conservative, but steadily evolving. We document changes, but not at the very earliest stages. DCDuring TALK 21:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats actually quite easy. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html - Considering Richard Stallman and GNU created the entire usage of the term 'Free' when it comes to software, you should look to the inventors of the term for the definition, which they go to great lengths to define with as legal of a definition as possible. "Without limitations", in terms of usage, or ability to change, is correct. But in reality its not totally free when it comes to changing the license so its not a Great Example, but its a Great Reference. You're as bound by this definition of Free as you are by any other definition. Now, BSD License is free, in every way, its free. Regardless, I digree, and merely point out the intention of the author of the term, which is free both as in speech, cost, and without limitations in terms of usage, change, ownership, or control of the end results.83.134.73.86


 * The definition is determined by real usage, not by what the inventor of the term says. Equinox ◑ 15:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Has any effort been made to change the page to include the definition for the adjective "free" as in free software ? This is an important definition within the computing community and is usually contrasted with open source software and proprietary software. I can attempt to update it, but don't really want to dance on landmines. Jawitkien (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * free software already has an entry (note that there are two definitions). Equinox ◑ 15:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Compare hacker for a word that techies want to mean one thing, but the rest of the world uses differently. Equinox ◑ 15:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

at liberty to enter and enjoy at will (usually fol. by of )
at liberty to enter and enjoy at will (usually fol. by of ): to be free of a friend's house. https://www.wordreference.com/definition/free --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Adverb: loose; no longer restrained or held back
The button came free and fell off --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * FREE https://oed.com/oed2/00089640  FREELY https://oed.com/oed2/00089681  --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February–March 2023
In here, free is a noun ('free men'), but in free other meanings are given (Straya sport &c). Non native here. Is this a general "substantivization" of adjectives in English? This process is so usual in the languages I know, but unheard as frequent in English: Does it deserve to be stated as a meaning on its own? ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 14:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is general in English, just somewhat less common in colloquial speech. It's not a separate sense of free. I'm a bit confused whether you are actually asking to RFV land of the free though. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanx 4 reply. No, I'm asking about the use of free in that expression (or others). LotF is fine for me. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 16:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Many English adjectives are used as if they were nouns. This particular usage is of the form the + ADJ, used with a plural verb and meaning "(the|a) group of ADJ people". Wiktionary, following many dictionaries, has noun entries with this sense for some of these (eg, poor, rich), but not for all (eg, good, unwashed). DCDuring (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that such nominalizations, when not accompanied by other features of nounness like a separate plural form (*the frees?), are in general to be removed per the strong consensus in the RFD of sick, poor, blind, deaf, tone-deaf, jobless, unemployed, living, dying, pre-dead, dead, .... Indeed, poor was deleted, but later re-added by someone on the basis that the OED includes it, perhaps unaware of the previous RFD. Perhaps we should have a template that generates some appropriate non-gloss definition for these like "Nominalization of [adjective]: those who are [adjective]", for cases where people want to include these (e.g. where there are other truly nounal senses and it might be confusing to omit this). - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The OED noun sense of "poor" is a bit tricky and based on their notes I think they're arguing for something specific to poor on the basis that it's very frequently coupled with an attributive of some sort ("the urban poor", "the deserving poor", etc.). This doesn't apply to free in any case. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "Modification by (true?) adjectives" is not a criterion that we have been using, because it isn't in CGEL (2005), AFAICR. They rely heavily on a "fused-head" analysis. Together with "modification by various(?) determiners", it might be a good basis for determining for determining whether we show a noun PoS for such words. DCDuring (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * hmm. How much value would it have as a persuasive test? It's certainly not a definitive test: using adjectives to describe other (nominalized) adjectives and verb forms is common; in the RFD linked above, Chuck Entz pointed out "the extremely wealthy", "the merely sick", "the recently widowed" ("not all of the recently widowed are old"), and I pointed out . - -sche (discuss) 00:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Widowed and killed are probably not a good examples, as they are readily analyzed as past participles. The others are more telling. It would not be desirable for this to be a matter of the relative frequency of modification of the nominalized adjecitves by adverbs and adjectives. But I'm not really in love with CGEL's fused-head analysis, which still makes sick, poor, etc. to be special cases. DCDuring (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Re "they are readily analyzed as past participles": yes, and that's my point, it's not a test that shows noun-ness, since other parts of speech are routinely usable in that way. - -sche (discuss) 02:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Since this isn't really a request for verification of anything, I'm inclined to move it to English adjectives or somewhere. OK? - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Beer Parlour, maybe? Though there isn’t much more to discuss, I think. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)