Free as in freedom or free as in beer: which free does open source promise?

Merge ConflictsPart 3 of 3

Who decides in an open source project, how they decide, and who can review the decision. Twelve projects, the same questions.

In this series 3 parts published
Merge Conflicts cover asking Which free? Free as in beer: no price. Free as in freedom: permissions.

Free as in freedom means you hold permissions over a program, whatever you paid for it. Free as in beer means it cost nothing. English uses one word for both, so software licenses had to pick one. They picked freedom. Here’s the difference, where WordPress lands, and why open source got a second name.

Estimated reading time: 11 minutes

Table of contents

🍺 What does free as in freedom mean, and where does the beer come in?

Back to the hypothetical food pantry from the four freedoms post. At a volunteer fair, two booths offer it software, and both signs say FREE:

  • Booth one offers a scheduling app with no price tag. The pantry can use it, but it can’t open it, change it or hand a copy to the pantry across town.
  • Booth two offers a program whose license lets the pantry run, study, change and share it. A developer at the booth charges to set it up.

Which booth gave away free software? The Free Software Foundation says booth two, and here’s why.

verified

“Thus, ‘free software’ is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ‘free’ as in ‘free speech,’ not as in ‘free beer.’”

Free Software Definition, Free Software Foundation, page dated 2026-06-09. The same page holds claim C-XF-029.1

What are the two meanings of free?

Here they are side by side:

  • Free as in beer: no price. The FSF’s word for it is gratis.
  • Free as in freedom: permissions you hold. The FSF sometimes says libre instead. It’s “borrowing the French or Spanish word for ‘free’ as in freedom,” the FSF explains, “to show we do not mean the software is gratis.”2

In other words, free beer describes the price tag. Free speech describes what you’re allowed to do, and nobody hands out speech by the pint. Booth one is free as in beer. Booth two is free as in freedom, even with a setup fee.

Two booths both signed FREE: one locked app, one box of four freedoms. Free as in beer beside free as in freedom.
Both signs say FREE. Only one booth hands over the freedoms.
Text description of this illustration

What this illustration shows

  • Subject: A sketchbook page titled “Two kinds of free,” set at a volunteer fair where two booths both carry a FREE sign.
  • Sections: On the left, a vendor sits at a laptop showing a calendar app. Beside it, a box marked with code brackets has a padlock. Next to the box, three notes read “Can’t open it,” “Can’t change it” and “Can’t share a copy.” On the right, another vendor holds a sign, “Setup help: paid.” In front of her, an open box holds four numbered tiles: 0 run, 1 study and change, 2 share copies, 3 share your version.
  • People: In the middle, the pantry coordinator holds a clipboard and talks with her technical collaborator, who uses a wheelchair.
  • Relationships: A margin note on the left reads “free as in beer: no price,” while the note on the right reads “free as in freedom: permissions.”
  • Reading order: The title, the left booth, the right booth, the two people, the margin notes, then the footer: “Two meanings, one word.”

The illustrations here are AI generated images I directed in ChatGPT. The pantry and its people are fictional.

📜 Why did the GNU Manifesto call its own wording careless?

The mix up didn’t start with app stores. It sits in the founding text itself. The GNU Manifesto went out under Richard Stallman’s name. It says GNU is a system “which I am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it.”3 Then a footnote on that sentence corrects it.

verified

“The wording here was careless. The intention was that nobody would have to pay for permission to use the GNU system.”

The GNU Manifesto, footnote 1, GNU Project, page updated 2021-11-02.4

The footnote then walks through what went wrong:

  • Readers heard: that “copies of GNU should always be distributed at little or no charge.”5
  • The intent: “That was never the intent.” The manifesto itself, the footnote adds, “mentions the possibility of companies providing the service of distribution for a profit.”6
  • The lesson: “Subsequently I have learned to distinguish carefully between ‘free’ in the sense of freedom and ‘free’ in the sense of price.”7

So the best known document in free software needed a footnote to say free as in freedom. If its own author needed that note, you can forgive yourself for needing a whole post.

💸 Can free as in freedom software cost money?

Yes. The license WordPress ships under says so in its preamble: “When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.”8 The same paragraph protects your freedom to distribute copies “and charge for this service if you wish.”9

verified

Here’s what the license text and the two definitions let you charge for:

  • Copies: “You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,” GPL version 2 says in section 1.10
  • Warranty: in the same sentence, “you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.”11
  • As much as you like: the FSF encourages redistributors “to charge as much as they wish or can.”12
  • Selling, by the other definition too: the Open Source Definition’s first criterion says “The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software.”13
A developer hands the pantry coordinator an invoice for setup and support. The laptop license says share, change, sell.
The price tag hangs on the work. The license stays open.
Text description of this illustration

What this illustration shows

  • Subject: A sketchbook page titled “Paid for the work, free to share,” set in the pantry office.
  • People: The coordinator sits at the desk on the left. Across from her, the technical collaborator, who uses a wheelchair, hands her a short invoice.
  • Sections: The invoice reads “Setup: 3 hours” and “Support: monthly,” and a small price tag hangs from it. Between them, a laptop shows a license page: “Share it. Change it. Sell copies if you like.” No tag or lock hangs on the laptop.
  • Relationships: A margin note at the upper right reads “You pay for the work, not for permission.” So the price belongs to the invoice, while the license stays open.
  • Reading order: The title, the margin note, the laptop, the invoice, then the footer: “Free as in freedom can cost money.”
  • Not shown: The license text on the laptop is fictional shorthand, not a quote from any real license.

A price, though, can’t buy or sell the freedom itself. The FSF puts it this way: “a low price doesn’t make the software free, or even closer to free.”14 Its essay adds that “users don’t have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software.”15 That’s because anyone with a copy may share it, which is freedom 2.

What does free as in beer look like without the freedom?

That leaves booth one. The FSF says “freeware” “has no clear accepted definition.”16 It adds that the term “is commonly used for packages which permit redistribution but not modification (and their source code is not available).”17 In short, that’s free beer with no freedom in the glass. A gratis app can be the right tool for a pantry, as long as nobody mistakes it for free as in freedom.

Every relationship that bears on this series
  • Pantheon, my current employer, is a WordPress and Drupal host.
  • GoDaddy, where I managed its Five for the Future contributors until July 2026.
  • FAIR, where I sit on the FAIR Package Manager Technical Steering Committee.
  • The WPOCC, where I’m a co-founding board member.
  • The WordPress Training Team, where I’m a faculty member and a former team rep.
  • Questions I asked on stage at WordCamp US 2024, the WordCamp Europe 2025 fireside and WordCamp Canada 2025.
  • My own words appear in court exhibits in WPEngine v. Automattic (Dkt. 18-28, 107-4, 18-5 and 69-16). The series reports that litigation in pairs.

🧩 Is WordPress free as in freedom, free as in beer, or both?

Both, for the core download, and the paid parts sit around it. Here’s the record, one document at a time:

  • License: WordPress is released under “the GPLv2 (or later) from the Free Software Foundation.”18 WordPress.org adds that “Derivatives of WordPress code inherit the GPL license.”19
  • Bill of rights: WordPress.org’s philosophy page lists the four freedoms and calls them the WordPress “bill of rights.”20
  • Price: the download page shows no price. It lists “Free” among six one word features, without saying which free.21
  • Paid parts: WordPress.org keeps a page of commercially supported GPL themes. It says “The GPL doesn’t say that everything must be zero-cost.”22 The same sentence ends: “when you receive the software it must not restrict your freedoms in how you use it.”23 Some shops, it adds, “give you the theme for zero-cost and just charge for support.”24

What does the WordPress license leave unsettled?

verified

What counts as a derivative is less settled, and WordPress.org says so. “There is some legal grey area regarding what is considered a derivative work,” its license page reads.25 It continues: “but we feel strongly that plugins and themes are derivative work and thus inherit the GPL license.”26

source-derived

A 2009 WordPress News post quoted a legal opinion from the Software Freedom Law Center. By that opinion, “the PHP files are subject to the requirements of the GPL while the images and CSS are not.”27 The post then said WordPress.org would “only promote and host things on WordPress.org that are 100% GPL or compatible.”28 This post reads the opinion as quoted there, not the opinion itself.

analysis

So a paid theme can be free as in freedom in its PHP code, while its images and stylesheets carry other terms. Therefore, read the license file, not the price tag.

🏷️ How do free software and open source differ if the programs are the same?

Both camps agree the list of programs barely differs. The OSI says both terms mean licenses that “guarantee a certain specific set of freedoms.”29 So both describe software that’s free as in freedom. Instead, they disagree about why that matters, and each says so in its own words.

QuestionFree software, per the FSFOpen source, per the OSI
Same programs?The terms “stand for almost the same range of programs”30“two terms for the same thing”31
What the term stresses“a movement for freedom and justice”32“the superiority of an open development process”33
Why this wordThink of “free” as in “free speech”34“the ambiguity of the English word ‘free’” was given as “a reason”35
How it describes the other“the open source idea values mainly practical advantage”36“the philosophically- and politically-focused label ‘free software’”37
What it says about price“a matter of liberty, not price”38“You can even sell Open Source software.”39
Free software and open source, each described by the organization that keeps its definition

The “open source” label dates to a strategy session on February 3, 1998, in Palo Alto.40 Before that, “free software” carried both meanings and the confusion that came with them.

Two signposts, free software: users' freedom and open source: practical advantage, point at one shelf of licenses.
Same programs, different reasons for caring about them.
Text description of this illustration

What this illustration shows

  • Subject: A sketchbook page titled “Two names, one shelf,” set in a small library.
  • Sections: A shelf holds three license folders labeled GPL, MIT and Apache. Above it, two signposts point down at the same shelf. The left sign reads “Free software: users’ freedom,” while the right sign reads “Open source: practical advantage.”
  • People: The coordinator stands on the left with a clipboard. Her technical collaborator, who uses a wheelchair, points at the shelf.
  • Relationships: A sticky note on the shelf reads “Same programs, different reasons.” Both arrows end at one shelf, so the drawing shows one set of licenses with two names.
  • Reading order: The title, the two signs, the shelf, the note, then the footer: “Two names, one shelf of licenses.”
  • Not shown: The sign wording paraphrases each organization’s own description, quoted in full in the table above.

analysis

Here’s what that means for you:

  • The licenses mostly overlap. WordPress’s license, GPL version 2, is the FSF’s own, and the Open Source Initiative lists it as approved.41
  • The reasons differ. The FSF’s essay says the open source idea “does not campaign for principles.”42 Then it draws the line: “This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term.”43
  • This series uses “open source” because the projects it compares use that word. The FSF’s objection is on the record, and its essay on the free software definition is the place to read the case in full.

❓ Which free as in freedom questions can you ask about any tool?

Pick one tool you pay for, or one you got for nothing, then ask five free as in freedom questions. Mark each answer documented, unclear, or a tradeoff I accept:

  1. Price. What does it cost, and what am I paying for: a copy, a service, support, or permission?
  2. License. Where’s the license text, and does it let me run, study, change and share the software?
  3. Freeware check. If it’s gratis, can I change it, or only pass it on?
  4. The paid parts. Do the images, styles or add ons carry different terms from the code?
  5. The word. Does the maker say free or open source, and whose definition backs that word?

Question 2 matches the license column of the series’ legal and intellectual property comparison, which Season 2 fills in for twelve projects. Notice, too, that none of these questions asks who decides. That’s on purpose, because the license doesn’t answer it, and the rest of this series does the asking.

Where this post sits in the series

This post follows 1.1, What are the four freedoms of open source, and where does WordPress use them? It uses the labels on the Merge Conflicts methods page. Next up is 1.3, “From GNU to GitHub: a short history.” Follow along on the Merge Conflicts series page.

Footnotes (43)
  1. Free Software Foundation. “What is Free Software?” GNU Project. Page updated 2026-06-09. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. Claim C-XF-029 reads the same page (S-XF-012, 2026-10-28). ↩︎
  2. Free Software Foundation. “What is Free Software?” GNU Project. Page updated 2026-06-09. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. Claim C-XF-029 reads the same page (S-XF-012, 2026-10-28). ↩︎
  3. Richard Stallman. “The GNU Manifesto.” GNU Project. Page updated 2021-11-02. https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. Quotes from the opening section and its footnote 1. ↩︎
  4. Richard Stallman. “The GNU Manifesto.” GNU Project. Page updated 2021-11-02. https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. Quotes from the opening section and its footnote 1. ↩︎
  5. Richard Stallman. “The GNU Manifesto.” GNU Project. Page updated 2021-11-02. https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. Quotes from the opening section and its footnote 1. ↩︎
  6. Richard Stallman. “The GNU Manifesto.” GNU Project. Page updated 2021-11-02. https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. Quotes from the opening section and its footnote 1. ↩︎
  7. Richard Stallman. “The GNU Manifesto.” GNU Project. Page updated 2021-11-02. https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. Quotes from the opening section and its footnote 1. ↩︎
  8. Free Software Foundation. “GNU General Public License, version 2.” gnu.org. June 1991; page updated 2023-11-30. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. Preamble and section 1. ↩︎
  9. Free Software Foundation. “GNU General Public License, version 2.” gnu.org. June 1991; page updated 2023-11-30. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. Preamble and section 1. ↩︎
  10. Free Software Foundation. “GNU General Public License, version 2.” gnu.org. June 1991; page updated 2023-11-30. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. Preamble and section 1. ↩︎
  11. Free Software Foundation. “GNU General Public License, version 2.” gnu.org. June 1991; page updated 2023-11-30. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. Preamble and section 1. ↩︎
  12. Free Software Foundation. “Selling Free Software.” GNU Project. Page updated 2021-09-10. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. ↩︎
  13. Open Source Initiative. “The Open Source Definition.” opensource.org. Version 1.9; page last modified 2024-02-16. https://opensource.org/osd. Accessed 2026-11-04. Criterion 1, Free Redistribution. ↩︎
  14. Free Software Foundation. “Selling Free Software.” GNU Project. Page updated 2021-09-10. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. ↩︎
  15. Free Software Foundation. “Selling Free Software.” GNU Project. Page updated 2021-09-10. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. ↩︎
  16. Free Software Foundation. “Categories of free and nonfree software.” GNU Project. Page updated 2025-06-05. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. Section “Freeware.” ↩︎
  17. Free Software Foundation. “Categories of free and nonfree software.” GNU Project. Page updated 2025-06-05. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. Section “Freeware.” ↩︎
  18. WordPress.org. “License.” WordPress.org. https://wordpress.org/about/license/. Accessed 2026-11-04. ↩︎
  19. WordPress.org. “License.” WordPress.org. https://wordpress.org/about/license/. Accessed 2026-11-04. ↩︎
  20. WordPress.org. “Philosophy.” WordPress.org. https://wordpress.org/about/philosophy/. Accessed 2026-11-04. Section “Our bill of rights.” ↩︎
  21. WordPress.org. “Download WordPress.” WordPress.org. Page for WordPress 7.1.4 as shown 2026-11-04. https://wordpress.org/download/. Accessed 2026-11-04. ↩︎
  22. WordPress.org. “Commercially supported GPL themes.” WordPress.org Themes. https://wordpress.org/themes/commercial/. Accessed 2026-11-04. ↩︎
  23. WordPress.org. “Commercially supported GPL themes.” WordPress.org Themes. https://wordpress.org/themes/commercial/. Accessed 2026-11-04. ↩︎
  24. WordPress.org. “Commercially supported GPL themes.” WordPress.org Themes. https://wordpress.org/themes/commercial/. Accessed 2026-11-04. ↩︎
  25. WordPress.org. “License.” WordPress.org. https://wordpress.org/about/license/. Accessed 2026-11-04. ↩︎
  26. WordPress.org. “License.” WordPress.org. https://wordpress.org/about/license/. Accessed 2026-11-04. ↩︎
  27. Matt Mullenweg. “Themes are GPL, too.” WordPress News. 2009-07-02. https://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/. Accessed 2026-11-04. The post quotes the Software Freedom Law Center’s opinion; the opinion itself was not read for this post. The author’s name appears in this footnote only (gate posture). ↩︎
  28. Matt Mullenweg. “Themes are GPL, too.” WordPress News. 2009-07-02. https://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/. Accessed 2026-11-04. The post quotes the Software Freedom Law Center’s opinion; the opinion itself was not read for this post. The author’s name appears in this footnote only (gate posture). ↩︎
  29. Open Source Initiative. “Frequently Answered Questions.” opensource.org. https://opensource.org/faq. Accessed 2026-11-04. Answers to “Can Open Source software be used for commercial purposes?” and “What is ‘free software’ and is it the same as ‘open source’?” ↩︎
  30. Richard Stallman. “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software.” GNU Project. Page updated 2024-01-01. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. ↩︎
  31. Open Source Initiative. “Frequently Answered Questions.” opensource.org. https://opensource.org/faq. Accessed 2026-11-04. Answers to “Can Open Source software be used for commercial purposes?” and “What is ‘free software’ and is it the same as ‘open source’?” ↩︎
  32. Richard Stallman. “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software.” GNU Project. Page updated 2024-01-01. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. ↩︎
  33. Open Source Initiative. “History of the OSI.” opensource.org. https://opensource.org/history. Accessed 2026-11-04. Section “Coining ‘Open Source.’” ↩︎
  34. Free Software Foundation. “What is Free Software?” GNU Project. Page updated 2026-06-09. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. Claim C-XF-029 reads the same page (S-XF-012, 2026-10-28). ↩︎
  35. Open Source Initiative. “Frequently Answered Questions.” opensource.org. https://opensource.org/faq. Accessed 2026-11-04. Answers to “Can Open Source software be used for commercial purposes?” and “What is ‘free software’ and is it the same as ‘open source’?” ↩︎
  36. Richard Stallman. “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software.” GNU Project. Page updated 2024-01-01. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. ↩︎
  37. Open Source Initiative. “History of the OSI.” opensource.org. https://opensource.org/history. Accessed 2026-11-04. Section “Coining ‘Open Source.’” ↩︎
  38. Free Software Foundation. “What is Free Software?” GNU Project. Page updated 2026-06-09. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. Claim C-XF-029 reads the same page (S-XF-012, 2026-10-28). ↩︎
  39. Open Source Initiative. “Frequently Answered Questions.” opensource.org. https://opensource.org/faq. Accessed 2026-11-04. Answers to “Can Open Source software be used for commercial purposes?” and “What is ‘free software’ and is it the same as ‘open source’?” ↩︎
  40. Open Source Initiative. “History of the OSI.” opensource.org. https://opensource.org/history. Accessed 2026-11-04. Section “Coining ‘Open Source.’” ↩︎
  41. Open Source Initiative. “GNU General Public License version 2.” opensource.org. SPDX identifier GPL-2.0, marked “Open Source Initiative Approved License.” https://opensource.org/license/gpl-2-0. Accessed 2026-11-04. ↩︎
  42. Richard Stallman. “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software.” GNU Project. Page updated 2024-01-01. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. ↩︎
  43. Richard Stallman. “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software.” GNU Project. Page updated 2024-01-01. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html. Accessed 2026-11-04. ↩︎
, , , , , ,

FIELD NOTES

Get the next field note in your inbox

A weekly note from the open-source frontier — what I’m building, breaking, and learning. No spam, no AI summaries, real writing from a real human.

Subscribe →
See past issues

Comments

One response

  1. Rachelle Wise
    via Bluesky

    I love the look so much 😍

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To respond on your own website, enter the URL of your response which should contain a link to this post’s permalink URL. Your response will then appear (possibly after moderation) on this page. Want to update or remove your response? Update or delete your post and re-enter your post’s URL again. (Find out more about Webmentions.)

More from the blog