It became apparent to me recently at the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo that our choice of words matters. I was standing at the Mozilla booth when two guys came up and peered over my shoulder. "They're selling the T-shirts here, too," one said with disappointment in his voice, "Let's go." I couldn't believe it - access to the source code isn't enough. Getting award-winning software at no cost isn't even enough. They expected free T-shirts too!

Anyone who has been involved in Linux for a while knows that there are two names for the software movement that has rallied around it: open source software and free software. There may even have been a few arguments along the way about this. But now that we are on the cusp of true mainstream adoption of Linux and a host of relevant software, it's time to make the case for dropping the "free" title in favor of the one that is the most appropriate in a mainstream world. Let's just call it open source.

I understand that free (as in speech) and free (as in beer) are different words in some languages, but that is simply not the case in English. To a mainstream audience, free in this context means without cost, causing confusion. When we call it "free software," we then have a burden to explain why some services and software have a price tag. Open is a better descriptor of the right of source code accessibility, and perhaps it is for that reason that the term is more widely used now. As Eric Raymond points out, calling it free is really "nothing more than an exercise in pointless political correctness. Use of the term 'free software' has declined to less than 4.5% of the community."

Calling open source software "free software" has encouraged an environment that may actually serve to stifle innovation. We keep calling it free software, and (surprise!) people expect it to be provided at no cost. In reality, there must be some reasonable incentive for producing software. Most people need to get paid for their work. Let's use language that does not discourage mainstream audiences from paying a fair price for good quality software. Those reasonable fees will go to fund research and development, and will encourage innovation. Mainstream buyers of IT are very comfortable with this arrangement, and it's the best environment for a healthy technology market.

Yes, a range of software is available that is both open and provided at no cost to the user. But someone is paying those developers, even if the payment is indirect. The big players in IT provide salaries to open source developers because they are making money off the effort in hardware, services, or other software. But not all software development efforts will have this type of synergy with an established player. Besides, it will benefit us all if the field is open to smaller companies. It needs to be understood and accepted that software can be open, yet offered at a fee. Let's take a pragmatic approach to the words we choose.