Should non-free be change to non-open?

[Raymond Day]

Finding out about Debian now. I thought it was just about the same as Ubuntu. But when I installed a server on a old Magnia SG30 with a Celeron one core 32-Bit CPU.

But installing it could not find the 2 ethernet drives for the built in ones.

I had to add to the /etc/apt/sources.list file 7 lines that at the end that all end in "non-free" but did not have to pay for them. That did make it see the 2 Ethernet drivers.

So I am finding out non-free is non-open because they don't give away the source code. So I guess that is way because someone has to pay for the source code so non-free? But if so that just the source code not the driver and it must be free. So should be non-open.

-Raymond Day

[arochester]

at the end that all end in "non-free" but did not have to pay for them.

"Free" has two meanings as far as Linux is concerned.

Free as in free beer i.e. beer you don't pay for.

And free as in libre, e.g. free of proprietary stuff.

So non-free doesn't mean something you have to pay for. It means something that is not open, accessible and unfettered.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html