Hello all,
I thought you might be interested in that blog post: http://k7r.eu/2-percent-discussion-free-software-or-open-source-software/
Scott Peterson from Red Hat this week published an article "Open Source or Free Software". It touches on a very important misunderstanding; people still believe that the terms "Open Source Software" and "Free Software" are referring to different software: they are not! Scott asked several interesting questions in his article and I thought I share my thoughts about them here and hopefully provoke some more responses on an important topic.
Would be interested in your views.
Regards, Matthias
Personally, knowing and being involved closely to the development/history of both Free and Open Source Software during the past 20yrs I think there is no point of trying to compare the 2 entities or distinguish one from another.
I rather see them one depending on another, meaning without Free Software I doubt that the Open Source Software would have existed but not vice versa and that clears almost everything. The way I see is that Free Software is the entity father (as per my comment on Scott's article) and the Open Source is the child entity.
Also making a comparison in terms of value I don't see it as a correct approach, again referring to the relationship between the 2 that I have just mentioned above. I'd mostly describe Free Software as a theorem and the Open Source is the module that puts into application that theorem. Stallman might disagree with me on this statement but I am use to him nowadays:-).
I know that the term Open Source is more popular these days simply because the term Free Software gets people into a confusion. Not everyone is keen to study the history or dig into the terminology or the meaning of something like the term Free Software. As Italian, it is easier in my language for example because in Italian the 2 terms are completely separate, Freedom and Free vs Libero and Gratis. That helps/helped a lot in my case but as Matthias mentioned in his article it is not the same in many other languages and in particular in English.
Either way, I find myself very comfortable to explain that the 2 are the exact same thing with addition of the reliance (or the existence should I say again) from one to another and I have no issues in using either of the terms. Today is more popular Open Source, that sounds perfect to me and I will stick with that but at the same time in a simple sentence (it takes 1-2 seconds and no need to tell the all history every time and to everyone) I can describe what I just stated in this email, to make sure people understands that they are pretty much the same.
Not sure if I explained myself, I hope I did and I'd actually love to have a discussion like this:-)
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Matthias Kirschner mk@fsfe.org wrote:
Hello all, I thought you might be interested in that blog post: http://k7r.eu/2-percent-discussion-free-software-or-open-source-software/
Scott Peterson from Red Hat this week published an article "Open Source or Free Software". It touches on a very important misunderstanding; people still believe that the terms "Open Source Software" and "Free Software" are referring to different software: they are not! Scott asked several interesting questions in his article and I thought I share my thoughts about them here and hopefully provoke some more responses on an important topic.
Would be interested in your views. Regards, Matthias
-- Matthias Kirschner - President - Free Software Foundation Europe Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, Germany | t +49-30-27595290 Registered at Amtsgericht Hamburg, VR 17030 | (fsfe.org/join) Contact (fsfe.org/about/kirschner) - Weblog (k7r.eu/blog.html) _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Stefan Umit Uygur wrote:
Personally, knowing and being involved closely to the development/history of both Free and Open Source Software during the past 20yrs I think there is no point of trying to compare the 2 entities or distinguish one from another.
There isn't just one point, there are multiple points to making this distinction. I find the distinction very helpful to understand why certain organizations make the choices they do.
I rather see them one depending on another, meaning without Free Software I doubt that the Open Source Software would have existed but not vice versa and that clears almost everything.
That is self-contradictory but begins to get into why the open source development methodology and philosophy exists. In short, open source is (as Stallman has pointed out) a right-wing reactionary counter to the free software movement. The free software social movement existed for over a decade before open source came along. Open source enthusiasts continue to try to talk about the practical benefits of free software to business without talking about the software freedom or the ethical underpinnings of the social movement.
Also making a comparison in terms of value I don't see it as a correct approach, again referring to the relationship between the 2 that I have just mentioned above. I'd mostly describe Free Software as a theorem and the Open Source is the module that puts into application that theorem.
I don't understand what this means.
I know that the term Open Source is more popular these days simply because the term Free Software gets people into a confusion.
Open source gets more popular press because the computing-related media is overwhelmingly corporate and desires gratis labor. Open source philosophy never pushes any listener to think ethically or consider the ramifications of something beyond a narrowminded developmental philosophy. In fact, as has been known for years, open source advocates dispense with their developmental philosophy if it gets in the way of placating a proprietary software business. This is why https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html has a section called "Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions…but Not Always" which includes this text:
[...] people from the free software movement and the open source camp often work together on practical projects such as software development. It is remarkable that such different philosophical views can so often motivate different people to participate in the same projects. Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally different views lead to very different actions.
The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom. Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will react very differently to that.
A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, “I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?” This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.
The free software activist will say, “Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. I will get my work done some other way, and support a project to develop a free replacement.” If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.
I encourage reading the GNU Project essays on this. They're far better written and draw important distinctions one needs to reach reasonable conclusions.
Stefan Umit Uygur continues:
Not everyone is keen to study the history or dig into the terminology or the meaning of something like the term Free Software. As Italian, it is easier in my language for example because in Italian the 2 terms are completely separate, Freedom and Free vs Libero and Gratis. That helps/helped a lot in my case but as Matthias mentioned in his article it is not the same in many other languages and in particular in English.
I think this trouble is vastly overstated. It doesn't take much time in English to explain the difference in definitions of the word "free". Besides, https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html gets into how people misunderstand the phrase "open source". In reality, it's unreasonable (but entirely business-friendly) to think that a handful of words will adequately convey any idea. Believing this is so is buying into the trap of concision (as explained in "Manufacturing Consent", Chomsky & Herman's famous book and the 1992 documentary based on that book.
Either way, I find myself very comfortable to explain that the 2 are the exact same thing with addition of the reliance (or the existence should I say again) from one to another and I have no issues in using either of the terms.
Then you are likely teaching others something oversimplified and untrue. No wonder you find it easy to do: as the old saying goes[1], "A lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes.".
- the free software movement started over a decade before open source. - the free software movement is a social movement, open source is a developmental methodology. - software freedom activists don't give into software non-freedom, open source advocates sometimes do and this alone shows how the two philosophies have radically different outcomes (thus are clearly not "the exact same thing"). - free software doesn't give business primacy but treat business users as equals, whereas open source philosophy was designed to speak to a business audience and frequently gives into whatever business representatives say they want. I think this is where the perverse attention to popularity comes from as well.
Instead of telling people what you've been telling them, I recommend pointing to the essays I've pointed to here. Stallman's book "Free as in Freedom" is also instructive (and also contains these essays). You can download a copy gratis, share it with anyone, or buy a printed copy from the FSF.
Hi,
I wanted to stay out of this discussion because I cannot believe that we are even having it, but it is difficult :-)
On 17. Nov 2017, at 09:13, J.B. Nicholson jbn@forestfield.org wrote:
I rather see them one depending on another, meaning without Free Software I doubt that the Open Source Software would have existed but not vice versa and that clears almost everything.
That is self-contradictory but begins to get into why the open source development methodology and philosophy exists. In short, open source is (as Stallman has pointed out) a right-wing reactionary counter to the free software movement. The free software social movement existed for over a decade before open source came along. Open source enthusiasts continue to try to talk about the practical benefits of free software to business without talking about the software freedom or the ethical underpinnings of the social movement.
Just because RMS said something does not mean it is true. He also once recommended that hackers should make sure their girlfriends loose their Emacs virginity. Not advice I would suggest to follow.
Open source is not right wing, and free software is not left wing. Pretty much everybody I know understands the duality of the practical benefits and the ethical underpinnings. Because without the practical benefits, the ethical underpinnings don’t exist either, right? It is just that to some people, one matters more than the other. Even the classic that the free software movement existed before open source is just smoke and mirrors, because the “movement" staid the same. It is just that people started inventing new terms for the same things to create a them-vs-us chasm. Judean People's Front vs People's Front of Judea, of sort. All we discuss here is nomenclature, not substance.
There, I said it. I call it FLOSS in my presentations and studies because free software and open source refers to exactly the same commons body of knowledge that causes the ethical changes we want to see.
Cheers,
Mirko.
Amen! Finally, thanks Mirko, totally with you on this. Didn't read your comments before l replied to JB.
Well said in simple words.
On 17 Nov 2017 2:31 am, "Mirko Boehm" mirko@fsfe.org wrote:
Hi,
I wanted to stay out of this discussion because I cannot believe that we are even having it, but it is difficult :-)
On 17. Nov 2017, at 09:13, J.B. Nicholson jbn@forestfield.org wrote:
I rather see them one depending on another, meaning without Free Software I doubt that the Open Source Software would have existed but not vice versa and that clears almost everything.
That is self-contradictory but begins to get into why the open source development methodology and philosophy exists. In short, open source is (as Stallman has pointed out) a right-wing reactionary counter to the free software movement. The free software social movement existed for over a decade before open source came along. Open source enthusiasts continue to try to talk about the practical benefits of free software to business without talking about the software freedom or the ethical underpinnings of the social movement.
Just because RMS said something does not mean it is true. He also once recommended that hackers should make sure their girlfriends loose their Emacs virginity. Not advice I would suggest to follow.
Open source is not right wing, and free software is not left wing. Pretty much everybody I know understands the duality of the practical benefits and the ethical underpinnings. Because without the practical benefits, the ethical underpinnings don’t exist either, right? It is just that to some people, one matters more than the other. Even the classic that the free software movement existed before open source is just smoke and mirrors, because the “movement" staid the same. It is just that people started inventing new terms for the same things to create a them-vs-us chasm. Judean People's Front vs People's Front of Judea, of sort. All we discuss here is nomenclature, not substance.
There, I said it. I call it FLOSS in my presentations and studies because free software and open source refers to exactly the same commons body of knowledge that causes the ethical changes we want to see.
Cheers,
Mirko.
Mirko Boehm | mirko@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellowship Representative, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On Friday 17. November 2017 03.30.40 Mirko Boehm wrote:
On 17. Nov 2017, at 09:13, J.B. Nicholson jbn@forestfield.org wrote:
That is self-contradictory but begins to get into why the open source development methodology and philosophy exists. In short, open source is (as Stallman has pointed out) a right-wing reactionary counter to the free software movement. The free software social movement existed for over a decade before open source came along. Open source enthusiasts continue to try to talk about the practical benefits of free software to business without talking about the software freedom or the ethical underpinnings of the social movement.
[...]
Open source is not right wing, and free software is not left wing.
Nobody is saying that the software is one thing or the other. But I would argue that people with a neoliberal perspective are unlikely to talk about "Free Software": they will instead talk about "open source" because, as others have said, it focuses on the properties of the product instead of any ethical motivations for giving the product those properties. And such ethical motivations do not sit well with exploitative corporate practices that deny users control over the software.
Meanwhile, the supposedly pragmatic motivations given for "open source" are largely concerned with making software development cheaper or better in some way. Those motivations can be spun in all sorts of ways to make "open source" sound like it is better for business and the consumer, which is the kind of uncontroversial thing that people are comfortable talking about in public without being labelled as having "an agenda".
Of course, those pragmatic motivations are also convenient to get Free Software developers to work for less or for free while proprietary software businesses can maximise their margins, particularly if the Free Software developers have been persuaded to use permissive licences. And they are convenient for withholding control from the users by telling them that the "development methodology" has given them better, cheaper software. Not that "open source" is actually a methodology in any real sense.
[...]
Even the classic that the free software movement existed before open source is just smoke and mirrors,
I don't think so. Although it is said that software played a secondary role to hardware in terms of revenue generation around the products involved in the beginnings of the Free Software movement - organisations paid for the mainframe or other hardware and the software was bundled - the cost of producing software was high and needed to be funded by such high-margin products.
At that time, people writing software might have been doing so "for fun" as well as in their job, but these will have been well-paid people, and I doubt that there would have been enough of them to be played off against each other in an attempt to drive the cost of software towards zero, which is what you see today with "open source" advocacy. I read somewhere recently that coding is the next "blue collar" profession, but the economic factors probably indicate that it is already there, at least for the software that nobody wants to fund properly and yet include in their own products.
So in that earlier era, with software development being a more confined, more expensive activity, before the age of packaged, proprietary software being sold at retail in any volume, one might have expected that ethical considerations around the sharing of software would have been a more relevant topic for consideration. And the progression to proprietary software business models only made the case for software freedom more acute.
Paul
On 11/17/2017 01:54 PM, Paul Boddie wrote:
Open source is not right wing, and free software is not left wing. Nobody is saying that the software is one thing or the other. But I would argue that people with a neoliberal perspective are unlikely to talk about "Free Software": they will instead talk about "open source" because, as others have said, it focuses on the properties of the product instead of any ethical motivations for giving the product those properties. And such ethical motivations do not sit well with exploitative corporate practices that deny users control over the software.
I mostly agree with this and with Stallman's position on the words.
As someone who works for a self-described "open source" company, I'd describe "open source" as a development methodology and a business model.
The development model is the well-known way of working in communities, with open projects and voluntary contributions with or without corporate support which have given us so many projects - Linux, Plone, Python, LibreOffice, really many more than I can mention.
The business model is about clients being able to share implementations and not paying for the same work several times over. If client A want a system, we can build if for them for $A €. If client B wants the same system, they can get it for the price of delivery + the price of their own customizations, for $B €, with (normally) $B << $A. And if A wants B's customizations, they can get it with the next upgrade, which is likely a part of their service agreement. So the business model is basically that of being more attractive to customers because they can share the costs and avoid lock-in, because they have a right to the code.
Anyway, that's the business model that Magenta works with. Most of our "open source" products are *not* made as community projects. This is not because of a lack of will, it's just that a) clients don't pay for community building and b) most people don't notice our repositories enough to send patches.
"Free software" is a political agenda to empower users.
So, to explain what "open source" is and why it's good, you need to explain why a methodology works well, and why the business model is attractive for clients.
To explain what "free software" is, you need to explain a political agenda that's all about empowering users.
Some people find it embarassing to have to explain a leftist- or libertarian-sounding political agenda in a business meeting.
But they shouldn't: The political agenda is really why it's so important. If it was only a question of getting better software, as Stallman argues, we might as well get ourselves a Mac already.
On 11/17/2017 02:39 PM, Carsten Agger wrote:
On 11/17/2017 01:54 PM, Paul Boddie wrote:
Open source is not right wing, and free software is not left wing. Nobody is saying that the software is one thing or the other. But I would argue that people with a neoliberal perspective are unlikely to talk about "Free Software": they will instead talk about "open source" because, as others have said, it focuses on the properties of the product instead of any ethical motivations for giving the product those properties. And such ethical motivations do not sit well with exploitative corporate practices that deny users control over the software.
I mostly agree with this and with Stallman's position on the words.
As someone who works for a self-described "open source" company, I'd describe "open source" as a development methodology and a business model.
[...]
Some people find it embarassing to have to explain a leftist- or libertarian-sounding political agenda in a business meeting.
But they shouldn't: The political agenda is really why it's so important. If it was only a question of getting better software, as Stallman argues, we might as well get ourselves a Mac already.
Admittedly, there's a lot of lack of ambiguity or clarity here.
Check out this very beatiful folder from one of our clients, the municipality of Aarhus (in Danish):
https://www.aakb.dk/sites/www.aakb.dk/files/files/page/hvad_er_opensource.pd...
It has a section called "What is Open Source" - and goes on to describe the four freedoms.
And they use the bicycle analogy - "open source" is a bicycle you're allowed to fix.
Which is really the values of free software.
Best Carsten
On 11/17/2017 02:47 PM, Carsten Agger wrote:
Admittedly, there's a lot of lack of ambiguity or clarity here.
Argh, not a "lack" of ambiguity - there *is* a lot of ambiguity, sorry.
Check out this very beatiful folder from one of our clients, the municipality of Aarhus (in Danish):
https://www.aakb.dk/sites/www.aakb.dk/files/files/page/hvad_er_opensource.pd...
It has a section called "What is Open Source" - and goes on to describe the four freedoms.
And they use the bicycle analogy - "open source" is a bicycle you're allowed to fix.
Which is really the values of free software.
Actually, I suspect they were inspired by some of the writings of our FSFE local group in Aarhus - the folder was created about the time that was active.
So in a way I should write to them and ask them to clarify that what they call "open source" can also be termed "free software". On the other hand, the exposition in the folder is so clear that I don't feel like criticizing them for it.
People who thus learn to appreciate the values of free software under the name of "open source" can hear about "free software" later, on other occasions, I think. The values are more important than the words.
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 02:58:29PM +0100, Carsten Agger (@agger) wrote:
The values are more important than the words.
Hi Carsten, I think precisely the opposite, that words convey values, and the values in turn shape the meaning of words. Now we have a different situation from 1998, and from 2013 even, where I posted [some criticism of esr's famous open-source post](https://ps.zoethical.com/t/good-bye-open-source-hello-free-software/344).
(The rest is more destined to the other readers on the list, since we had most of this discussion already recently.)
Bruce Perens, whom we cannot blame for not knowing what he talks about concerning both Open Source and Free Software, recently wrote the following [On Usage of the Phrase Open Source](https://perens.com/2017/09/26/on-usage-of-the-phrase-open-source/):
"For a work to be Open Source, it must be entirely under a license
or licenses which comply with the Open Source Definition."
And:
"When “Open Source” is used as a descriptive term rather than a
proper name, it becomes a fuzzy reference to a development paradigm with no concrete definition, rather than the specific set of license rules in the Open Source Definition. So, it can be made to mean just about anything. Don’t allow people to erode the definition of Open Source."
He concludes with:
It is unfortunate that for some time the Open Source Initiative
deprecated Richard Stallman and Free Software, and that some people still consider Open Source and Free Software to be different things today. I never meant it to be that way. Open Source was meant to be a way of promoting the concept of Free Software to business people, who I have always hoped would thus come to appreciate Richard and his Free Software campaign. And many have. Open Source licenses and Free Software licenses are effectively the same thing.
Yet there are two things happening here -- as much as I respect Bruce, I tend to disagree with him on political perspectives (he's a Merkan, I'm a Yurpin, after all.) First, many respondents maintain that Open Source is different from "the specific set of license rules in the Open Source Definition", making it "a movement" or "an ideology", discontinued from [the OSD](https://opensource.org/osd). The second thing happening is of an order of magnitude more important to the current discussion: the milieu changed quite drastically...
-----
### The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
But that does not tell anything about how some Open Source software may discriminate against certain persons of groups of persons.
-----
In 2017, the arch-enemy of software freedom has turned an "Open Source company". This is quite significant, don't you think, that a company that spent so much energy denying software freedom and hating Open Source with a passion suddenly flips around and embrace Open Source. Not only embrace it, but quickly become "number one contributor to Open Source" (in number of developers) according to [Github statistics](https://octoverse.github.com/). Guess what they contribute to? Their own environment, which has barely any overlaps with the rest of the free world. Who's going to use it? Not Free Software developers, or only marginally. Definitely M$ understood the meaning of Open Source, as they created its own subset, with only the handful of languages interesting to them, and only the subset of 2 licenses they prefer: "MIT" (Expat license) and "Apache 2.0".
A quick look at figures show that the GAFAM provide most contributions to Open Source software -- I repeat: big proprietary software companies, who also produce Open Source software, are actually the biggest contributors of OSS. Of course they are, since without them the vast majority of Free Software developers would have remained hobbyists at best, and starving hackers at worst; the gain is obvious. You can see Nadia Eghbert's latest presentations about funding Open Source: she clearly mentions the lack of financial support:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS6IpvTWwkQ
### We don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. [The
enemy is proprietary software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html).
If you, on this list, still consider that Open Source and Free Software are the same, that it's only a question of label, and not a political question, and not a philosophical question, then you've fallen to an economic ideology propelled by finely crafted propaganda -- sorry, [meme-engineering](https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler).
Forging words with definitive meaning, putting them into solid relations, and not questioning their meaning when the relations change is exactly why M$ can come into your playground and hit the ball without anyone yelling back at them to GTFO. PR has you at your most vulnerable point: you never wanted this antagonism in the first place, you just wanted to code, so your emotional response is welcoming. You also need to look beyond the smoke screen of "the victory of Open Source": meanwhile, the same companies continue practicing the same tactics with the same results, except now nobody's looking at them frowning, because now, they're 'Open Source', they're "with us".
Capitalism has long been the master process to turn dissidence into sameness. When a RedHat lawyer needs a more neutral term, why does it need it anyway? Has Open Source become too compromised to satisfy the legal types? I don't think so. Has the world changed rapidly and, since 2008, realized there was a large conspiracy of (mostly U.S.) banksters and capitalism would never trickle down? Here in Europe, the commons have clearly evolved from marginal to mainstream, and to clearly anti-capitalists. But the discourse I hear from FSFE seems to be leaning another way, towards some very trendy 'apolitical stance' in sync with the Silicon Valley, and more generally coming from a comfortable privileged class of European (predominantly) white male software engineers. It's easy to claim to be apolitical when you have large disposable income and sit on top of the pyramid. I find it extremely uncomfortable to read many uncritical messages in this thread.
Whether you like it or not we all live in a world where the enemies of freedom keep acting against freedom, spending millions at a time shaping a new reality in which you are not a threat. Mozilla ceased to be a threat, and the Linux kernel has not ever been one (Linux Torvalds managed to drive his Ferrari, and the GRSecurity patches became unavailable to the public), RedHat is creating its own software environment by cutting off the common space between the GNU/Linux and *BSD worlds, only on a smaller scale than M$ does so, following Apple. Google, Apple, Amazon, all have their own hardware so they can ensure a perfect fit for their (proprietary) software, and where you won't be able to remove the battery.
So yes, the 2% discussion is useless, unless it makes people realize that what was true in 1998 still holds: either you talk about freedom, or you look away, leaving proprietary software companies create Open Source software and move further away from Free Software. Or, we can think about what makes Free Software a natural choice to create a public digital infrastructure, that clearly shows how to distinguish between software that benefits subsidiarity and amplify human agency and action, from software that benefits oligopolies, power, and disable human action. Then what it is called won't matter, because everyone will know what the code stands for.
== hk
I couldn't have said better. I fully agree with you on these points.
Thank you very much! ;)
hellekin how@gnu.org writes:
Hi Carsten, I think precisely the opposite, that words convey values, and the values in turn shape the meaning of words. Now we have a different situation from 1998, and from 2013 even, where I posted [some criticism of esr's famous open-source post](https://ps.zoethical.com/t/good-bye-open-source-hello-free-software/344).
(The rest is more destined to the other readers on the list, since we had most of this discussion already recently.)
Bruce Perens, whom we cannot blame for not knowing what he talks about concerning both Open Source and Free Software, recently wrote the following [On Usage of the Phrase Open Source](https://perens.com/2017/09/26/on-usage-of-the-phrase-open-source/):
"For a work to be Open Source, it must be entirely under a license
or licenses which comply with the Open Source Definition."
And:
"When “Open Source” is used as a descriptive term rather than a
proper name, it becomes a fuzzy reference to a development paradigm with no concrete definition, rather than the specific set of license rules in the Open Source Definition. So, it can be made to mean just about anything. Don’t allow people to erode the definition of Open Source."
He concludes with:
It is unfortunate that for some time the Open Source Initiative
deprecated Richard Stallman and Free Software, and that some people still consider Open Source and Free Software to be different things today. I never meant it to be that way. Open Source was meant to be a way of promoting the concept of Free Software to business people, who I have always hoped would thus come to appreciate Richard and his Free Software campaign. And many have. Open Source licenses and Free Software licenses are effectively the same thing.
Yet there are two things happening here -- as much as I respect Bruce, I tend to disagree with him on political perspectives (he's a Merkan, I'm a Yurpin, after all.) First, many respondents maintain that Open Source is different from "the specific set of license rules in the Open Source Definition", making it "a movement" or "an ideology", discontinued from [the OSD](https://opensource.org/osd). The second thing happening is of an order of magnitude more important to the current discussion: the milieu changed quite drastically...
### The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
But that does not tell anything about how some Open Source software may discriminate against certain persons of groups of persons.
In 2017, the arch-enemy of software freedom has turned an "Open Source company". This is quite significant, don't you think, that a company that spent so much energy denying software freedom and hating Open Source with a passion suddenly flips around and embrace Open Source. Not only embrace it, but quickly become "number one contributor to Open Source" (in number of developers) according to [Github statistics](https://octoverse.github.com/). Guess what they contribute to? Their own environment, which has barely any overlaps with the rest of the free world. Who's going to use it? Not Free Software developers, or only marginally. Definitely M$ understood the meaning of Open Source, as they created its own subset, with only the handful of languages interesting to them, and only the subset of 2 licenses they prefer: "MIT" (Expat license) and "Apache 2.0".
A quick look at figures show that the GAFAM provide most contributions to Open Source software -- I repeat: big proprietary software companies, who also produce Open Source software, are actually the biggest contributors of OSS. Of course they are, since without them the vast majority of Free Software developers would have remained hobbyists at best, and starving hackers at worst; the gain is obvious. You can see Nadia Eghbert's latest presentations about funding Open Source: she clearly mentions the lack of financial support:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS6IpvTWwkQ
### We don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. [The
enemy is proprietary software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html).If you, on this list, still consider that Open Source and Free Software are the same, that it's only a question of label, and not a political question, and not a philosophical question, then you've fallen to an economic ideology propelled by finely crafted propaganda -- sorry, [meme-engineering](https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler).
Forging words with definitive meaning, putting them into solid relations, and not questioning their meaning when the relations change is exactly why M$ can come into your playground and hit the ball without anyone yelling back at them to GTFO. PR has you at your most vulnerable point: you never wanted this antagonism in the first place, you just wanted to code, so your emotional response is welcoming. You also need to look beyond the smoke screen of "the victory of Open Source": meanwhile, the same companies continue practicing the same tactics with the same results, except now nobody's looking at them frowning, because now, they're 'Open Source', they're "with us".
Capitalism has long been the master process to turn dissidence into sameness. When a RedHat lawyer needs a more neutral term, why does it need it anyway? Has Open Source become too compromised to satisfy the legal types? I don't think so. Has the world changed rapidly and, since 2008, realized there was a large conspiracy of (mostly U.S.) banksters and capitalism would never trickle down? Here in Europe, the commons have clearly evolved from marginal to mainstream, and to clearly anti-capitalists. But the discourse I hear from FSFE seems to be leaning another way, towards some very trendy 'apolitical stance' in sync with the Silicon Valley, and more generally coming from a comfortable privileged class of European (predominantly) white male software engineers. It's easy to claim to be apolitical when you have large disposable income and sit on top of the pyramid. I find it extremely uncomfortable to read many uncritical messages in this thread.
Whether you like it or not we all live in a world where the enemies of freedom keep acting against freedom, spending millions at a time shaping a new reality in which you are not a threat. Mozilla ceased to be a threat, and the Linux kernel has not ever been one (Linux Torvalds managed to drive his Ferrari, and the GRSecurity patches became unavailable to the public), RedHat is creating its own software environment by cutting off the common space between the GNU/Linux and *BSD worlds, only on a smaller scale than M$ does so, following Apple. Google, Apple, Amazon, all have their own hardware so they can ensure a perfect fit for their (proprietary) software, and where you won't be able to remove the battery.
So yes, the 2% discussion is useless, unless it makes people realize that what was true in 1998 still holds: either you talk about freedom, or you look away, leaving proprietary software companies create Open Source software and move further away from Free Software. Or, we can think about what makes Free Software a natural choice to create a public digital infrastructure, that clearly shows how to distinguish between software that benefits subsidiarity and amplify human agency and action, from software that benefits oligopolies, power, and disable human action. Then what it is called won't matter, because everyone will know what the code stands for.
== hk
Hi everyone,
As has already been said, people sometimes talk about "open source" when they refer to the four freedoms, or vice versa. I do not think it's helpful for anyone to try to divide people by the terminology they use.
I can not stress this enough, because it strikes a nerve. I am what you might call a neoliberal -- or at least a liberal of some sort. I have no patience for socialism and I've never voted for the right.
And yet -- I am here. I co-founded the FSFE. Before that, I was an FSF and GNU project volunteer. I *keep* working for the FSFE and I feel passionate about the philosophy of Free Software. So I really wish people would stop trying to label me based on my choice of wording.
It just does not work. We must look beyond the words people use and encourage people to think about the philosophy of our movement, as the ethical foundations on which the development model depends, and vice versa. And we must do that regardless of what terminology people use.
But if people insist that there's a political and philosophical difference between Free Software and Open Source, then juding by my political beliefs, I must be using the wrong terminology. And have been for the last 20 years. So I guess it's time for me to start talking about Open Source then?
# Jonas Oberg [2017-11-18 07:13 +0100]:
It just does not work. We must look beyond the words people use and encourage people to think about the philosophy of our movement, as the ethical foundations on which the development model depends, and vice versa. And we must do that regardless of what terminology people use.
Couldn't have said it better, thank you.
Why can't we enjoy and advocate for the many benefits "FLOSS" gives us, from practical to ethical, without creating artificial barriers? While I personally prefer Free Software, I am fine with using Open Source when I have the feeling that my dialogue partners will more likely get my point (e.g. political actors who I need to convince in 5 sentences without confusing them). Our shared objectives are what matter.
Sometimes I believe hard-liner evangelists of one terminology feel superior to the other because they feel they understand what it is all about (and often announce it loud and widely). But we shouldn't underestimate people (also) using other terms, they probably have very good reasons to do so.
Best, Max
On Saturday 18. November 2017 07.13.12 Jonas Oberg wrote:
As has already been said, people sometimes talk about "open source" when they refer to the four freedoms, or vice versa. I do not think it's helpful for anyone to try to divide people by the terminology they use.
I can not stress this enough, because it strikes a nerve. I am what you might call a neoliberal -- or at least a liberal of some sort. I have no patience for socialism and I've never voted for the right.
Neoliberalism and liberalism are not the same thing. And, honestly, if people didn't want anyone to mention how terminology is used by different groups and why this is done, why was the topic even brought up on this list?
So, an article was published on a site run by a corporation that would clearly prefer to rehabilitate the "open source" term, avoiding the use of "Free Software" for reasons I have already mentioned. I appreciate that it acts as some kind of reminder that the software under the different labels can have the same properties, and I understand that people can talk about "open source" while actually thinking of "software freedom".
I personally used "open source" myself for quite some time before realising that it didn't communicate my motivations. A substantial reason for not continuing to use the term was the way "open source" was being used to emphasise efficiency and other properties that are orthogonal to the actual properties conferred by the licensing, meaning that "open source" was being used to advocate unsustainable economic models for Free Software development.
What all this leads to is those people Hellekin mentioned who "have [a] large disposable income and sit on top of the pyramid" doing very well telling the minions that Free Software licences applying to the code those minions have contributed to Free Software projects don't need to be upheld. This, largely because those people at the top of the pyramid would like to do things in their own personally-lucrative way.
One of those people even went on the record recently to boast that he had used his influence to eliminate his employer's financial support for one of the few organisations who can be bothered to pursue Free Software licence violations to the extent required to uphold the interests of copyright holders and end- users. Pulling down what is probably a good six-figure dollar salary while giving the minions and end-users a promise of "jam tomorrow", compelling them to donate what they can spare to remedy the situation, is a pretty good example of neoliberalism in action if you ask me.
Maybe such people do use terms like "Free Software" and "software freedom" with a straight face, but the hypocrisy would be obvious. Far better for them that they use terminology that doesn't make people think about freedoms.
Paul
Hi,
* Paul Boddie [2017-11-18 14:54:52 +0100]:
One of those people even went on the record recently to boast that he had used his influence to eliminate his employer's financial support for one of the few organisations who can be bothered to pursue Free Software licence violations
I don't know what you are talking about: please could you point me to the relevant news (a simple URL will do the job)
ciao Giovanni
On Tuesday 21. November 2017 14.57.15 Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
- Paul Boddie [2017-11-18 14:54:52 +0100]:
One of those people even went on the record recently to boast that he had used his influence to eliminate his employer's financial support for one of the few organisations who can be bothered to pursue Free Software licence violations
I don't know what you are talking about: please could you point me to the relevant news (a simple URL will do the job)
Sure:
https://lwn.net/Articles/738150/
I already blogged about the "long email conversation that happened in 2016":
https://blogs.fsfe.org/pboddie/?p=1425
In fact, that whole blog article covers the difference in "style" between various parties when it comes to Free Software licence violations, in case my remarks needed more context.
Paul
Things to keep in mind, simply put:
- Community oriented GPL enforcement (generally more friendly people in regards to these matters, if you also are committed to implement or discuss their suggestions in a friendly way/tone): SFLC, SFC, FSF.
- Something else I can't decide: LF, Linux project.
;D
2017-11-21T16:05:13+0100 Paul Boddie wrote:
Sure:
https://lwn.net/Articles/738150/
I already blogged about the "long email conversation that happened in 2016":
https://blogs.fsfe.org/pboddie/?p=1425
In fact, that whole blog article covers the difference in "style" between various parties when it comes to Free Software licence violations, in case my remarks needed more context.
Paul
Hi everyone,
occasionally, people in our community make mistakes. I do too, and in this case, I spoke (or wrote) a bit hastily:
I have no patience for socialism and I've never voted for the right.
These are strong words which I should not have put out there. The point which I tried to make with them was well contained in the rest of the mail: there are people, with strong opinions, from across the entire political spectrum, and whether someone talks about Free Software or Open Source is not a good indicator of where on this political spectrum they fall.
Best,
Totally with you on this Jonas, absolutely.
I am not a big fan of pedantic personalities who actually sticks with the meaning of each words mentioned by others, words like socialism, totalitarianism, liberalism, neo-liberalism, politics, etc. it is all the same crap to me and plus we are going off topic...I simply don't see the utility of this as it doesn't help.
All I expected here a contribution into this topic by everyone and not the lecturing of literature and meaning of words used by someone (accidentally because is not where the focus and topic is about to) because, a pro-active person will catch the real meaning and the context anyway.
Perhaps my expectation are to high...
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Jonas Oberg jonas@fsfe.org wrote:
Hi everyone,
occasionally, people in our community make mistakes. I do too, and in this case, I spoke (or wrote) a bit hastily:
I have no patience for socialism and I've never voted for the right.
These are strong words which I should not have put out there. The point which I tried to make with them was well contained in the rest of the mail: there are people, with strong opinions, from across the entire political spectrum, and whether someone talks about Free Software or Open Source is not a good indicator of where on this political spectrum they fall.
Best,
-- Jonas Öberg Executive Director
FSFE e.V. - keeping the power of technology in your hands. Your support enables our work, please join us today http://fsfe.org/join _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Hi!
* Jonas Oberg [2017-11-21 10:01:22 +0100]:
occasionally, people in our community make mistakes. I do too, and in this case, I spoke (or wrote) a bit hastily:
I have no patience for socialism and I've never voted for the right.
These are strong words which I should not have put out there.
thank you very much for this reply! I'm not socialist but it does not matter: we are all on the same side, no matter our political position
[...]
whether someone talks about Free Software or Open Source is not a good indicator of where on this political spectrum they fall.
I agree, totally, verbatim
ciao Giovanni
-- Giovanni Biscuolo Xelera - IT infrastructures http://xelera.eu/contact-us/
**per favore** Quota Bene: http://wiki.news.nic.it/QuotarBene **please** use Inline Reply: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
Hi J.B., I am going to quote you quickly without breaking the entire commentary as it is more readable...
Mine was just a response and purely referred to the article, not an abstract of all possible points. Pls pay close attention 😉
Re to your statement about self-contradictory part, you are in agreement with what l stated, especially speaking of FS being existing decades before and so on. I am a bit confused what you see as contradictory in my comments as you are saying the same thing. Also pls do not lecture me with Stallman and GNU links about this topic as l am fairly familiar with both entities (Richard, the GNU project and the difference between FS and OSS). Actually l clearly stated this as well but you seem to have ignored that part for some reason.
I am a very big supporter of Free Software (since 1999) and one thing l want to avoid happening in this community is to create another religion and tribal war. I fully support the idea, philosophy behind the Free Software, but it is time to get out of the nutshell and deal with reality, to understand and listen also the other voices and opinions because yours is not the sacred bible (with yours l refer to general FS audience of course, not an individual acclamation). The GPL v3 is perfect example if you know the full process/story, what was the first draft looked like and how its been almost radically changed (luckily) before the release because it was too extreme in its essence....
Last but not least, if you don't understand my comment about the theorem and application of that theorem, then there is not much to say. Usually when l don't understand something l stay quiet as perhaps it is something beyond my understanding and l wouldn't reply with an attitude by just saying l don't understand. I'd rather ask nicely if you can formulate better or be more explicit and human readable.
It is a good practice if everyone puts their thoughts and opinions about this topic (generally everywhere actually and not only here in this topic) rather than almost all the time referring to Stallman's words (Stallman said this and that, blabla). This is not because l despise or even ignore Stallman's thoughts on the matter but for a simple reason that, if everyone express their own opinions we might have the better way or even understanding to create a self explanatory concept for everyone. It is just to enrich the content and not remain static based on a single opinion.
That is the only way out l see and define the community. Otherwise there's no point for us to discuss the matter here if we have to every time refer to and stick with what Stallman said.
Hope this time.my comments are clear enough and pls take no offense, nothing personal here😊
On 17 Nov 2017 12:13 am, "J.B. Nicholson" jbn@forestfield.org wrote:
Stefan Umit Uygur wrote:
Personally, knowing and being involved closely to the development/history of both Free and Open Source Software during the past 20yrs I think there is no point of trying to compare the 2 entities or distinguish one from another.
There isn't just one point, there are multiple points to making this distinction. I find the distinction very helpful to understand why certain organizations make the choices they do.
I rather see them one depending on another, meaning without Free
Software I doubt that the Open Source Software would have existed but not vice versa and that clears almost everything.
That is self-contradictory but begins to get into why the open source development methodology and philosophy exists. In short, open source is (as Stallman has pointed out) a right-wing reactionary counter to the free software movement. The free software social movement existed for over a decade before open source came along. Open source enthusiasts continue to try to talk about the practical benefits of free software to business without talking about the software freedom or the ethical underpinnings of the social movement.
Also making a comparison in terms of value I don't see it as a correct
approach, again referring to the relationship between the 2 that I have just mentioned above. I'd mostly describe Free Software as a theorem and the Open Source is the module that puts into application that theorem.
I don't understand what this means.
I know that the term Open Source is more popular these days simply
because the term Free Software gets people into a confusion.
Open source gets more popular press because the computing-related media is overwhelmingly corporate and desires gratis labor. Open source philosophy never pushes any listener to think ethically or consider the ramifications of something beyond a narrowminded developmental philosophy. In fact, as has been known for years, open source advocates dispense with their developmental philosophy if it gets in the way of placating a proprietary software business. This is why https://www.gnu.org/philosophy /open-source-misses-the-point.html has a section called "Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions…but Not Always" which includes this text:
[...] people from the free software movement and the open source camp
often work together on practical projects such as software development. It is remarkable that such different philosophical views can so often motivate different people to participate in the same projects. Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally different views lead to very different actions.
The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom. Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will react very differently to that.
A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, “I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?” This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.
The free software activist will say, “Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. I will get my work done some other way, and support a project to develop a free replacement.” If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.
I encourage reading the GNU Project essays on this. They're far better written and draw important distinctions one needs to reach reasonable conclusions.
Stefan Umit Uygur continues:
Not everyone is keen to study the history or dig into the terminology or the meaning of something like the term Free Software. As Italian, it is easier in my language for example because in Italian the 2 terms are completely separate, Freedom and Free vs Libero and Gratis. That helps/helped a lot in my case but as Matthias mentioned in his article it is not the same in many other languages and in particular in English.
I think this trouble is vastly overstated. It doesn't take much time in English to explain the difference in definitions of the word "free". Besides, https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html gets into how people misunderstand the phrase "open source". In reality, it's unreasonable (but entirely business-friendly) to think that a handful of words will adequately convey any idea. Believing this is so is buying into the trap of concision (as explained in "Manufacturing Consent", Chomsky & Herman's famous book and the 1992 documentary based on that book.
Either way, I find myself very comfortable to explain that the 2 are
the exact same thing with addition of the reliance (or the existence should I say again) from one to another and I have no issues in using either of the terms.
Then you are likely teaching others something oversimplified and untrue. No wonder you find it easy to do: as the old saying goes[1], "A lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes.".
- the free software movement started over a decade before open source. - the free software movement is a social movement, open source is a developmental methodology. - software freedom activists don't give into software non-freedom, open source advocates sometimes do and this alone shows how the two philosophies have radically different outcomes (thus are clearly not "the exact same thing"). - free software doesn't give business primacy but treat business users as equals, whereas open source philosophy was designed to speak to a business audience and frequently gives into whatever business representatives say they want. I think this is where the perverse attention to popularity comes from as well.
Instead of telling people what you've been telling them, I recommend pointing to the essays I've pointed to here. Stallman's book "Free as in Freedom" is also instructive (and also contains these essays). You can download a copy gratis, share it with anyone, or buy a printed copy from the FSF.
[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Interesting indeed.
I vote for using terms that define our values, not neutral ones.
Personallyq, I'm an activist, not an user. I want to spread my values, not rely on neutral term just "to reach" more people. If I reach more pople in the process, that's OK, but not a priority for me as free/libre software activist. I don't care for the "quantity" of people I reach for, I care for the "quality" of my message and the "quality" of my activism.
I also try to copy/transport/mimic my personal values in my projects or in the projects I contribute to, so that I'm always "nitpicking" by mentioning the importance of free/libre software *philosophy* over time --- over and over when I have the chance, time and patience to do so.
If however, I feel that I'm in an environment/project where it mainly focuses on "open source" (no matter if they use terms such as "fre/libre software" or "open source"), despite also doing the same thing as described in the previous paragraph, I sometimes feel less motivated to continue working on that project or tend to take/view the project's product/result with a grain of salt.
Finally, Stallman also states ([1]) that supporters/followers/proponents --- and projects supporting/following --- free/libre software *philosophy* should avoid both "FOSS" (because of the misleading "free" part which reminds people of "gratis") and "FLOSS" (because it's too neutral).
[1] http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/2015-10-24--rms--free-software-and-your-freedom--seagl--speech.ogv (under CC BY-SA 4.0).
Matthias Kirschner mk@fsfe.org writes:
Hello all,
I thought you might be interested in that blog post: http://k7r.eu/2-percent-discussion-free-software-or-open-source-software/
Scott Peterson from Red Hat this week published an article "Open Source or Free Software". It touches on a very important misunderstanding; people still believe that the terms "Open Source Software" and "Free Software" are referring to different software: they are not! Scott asked several interesting questions in his article and I thought I share my thoughts about them here and hopefully provoke some more responses on an important topic.
Would be interested in your views.
Regards, Matthias
Addendum: Both the free/libre software movement and the open source development model generally produce and work in the same projects. The differences are in ideology and this can also result in discussions for which the decisions affect the resulting product --- which might have some side-effects of people leaving the project or even forking it so as to make one related to their values.
As is already present in the reference I made to Stallman's talk, some of the differences in the ideology of those two groups are visible in the choice of license type, presence (or absense) of license enforcement (and how it's made) and how they behave when noticing derivatives that implement digital handcuffs or non-free parts when these adaptations use their project's product/result (which is assumed to be free/libre).
Adonay Felipe Nogueira adfeno@hyperbola.info writes:
Interesting indeed.
I vote for using terms that define our values, not neutral ones.
Personallyq, I'm an activist, not an user. I want to spread my values, not rely on neutral term just "to reach" more people. If I reach more pople in the process, that's OK, but not a priority for me as free/libre software activist. I don't care for the "quantity" of people I reach for, I care for the "quality" of my message and the "quality" of my activism.
I also try to copy/transport/mimic my personal values in my projects or in the projects I contribute to, so that I'm always "nitpicking" by mentioning the importance of free/libre software *philosophy* over time --- over and over when I have the chance, time and patience to do so.
If however, I feel that I'm in an environment/project where it mainly focuses on "open source" (no matter if they use terms such as "fre/libre software" or "open source"), despite also doing the same thing as described in the previous paragraph, I sometimes feel less motivated to continue working on that project or tend to take/view the project's product/result with a grain of salt.
Finally, Stallman also states ([1]) that supporters/followers/proponents --- and projects supporting/following --- free/libre software *philosophy* should avoid both "FOSS" (because of the misleading "free" part which reminds people of "gratis") and "FLOSS" (because it's too neutral).
[1] http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/2015-10-24--rms--free-software-and-your-freedom--seagl--speech.ogv (under CC BY-SA 4.0).
Hi Adonay,
As is already present in the reference I made to Stallman's talk, some of the differences in the ideology of those two groups are visible in the choice of license type, presence (or absense) of license enforcement (and how it's made) and how they behave when noticing derivatives that implement digital handcuffs or non-free parts when these adaptations use their project's product/result (which is assumed to be free/libre).
I would posit though that to the extent there's a difference between two groups (I'm not convinced there are, at least not so distinctly), then the difference is not between whether they use "Free Software" or "Open Source" as a term, but precisely the differences you mention.
It would seem irrefutable there are groups which prefer permissive licensing, and there are groups which prefer copyleft licensing. But it seems divisive and unnecessary to ascribe on those groups some general views of what term they may or may not use.
Jonas Oberg schreef op do 16-11-2017 om 15:10 [+0100]:
I would posit though that to the extent there's a difference between two groups (I'm not convinced there are, at least not so distinctly), then the difference is not between whether they use "Free Software" or "Open Source" as a term, but precisely the differences you mention.
There is a difference between the groups. "Open Source" is a tool or methadology, not a moral stance or ideology like "Free Software" is. That's really the only difference, as I see it.
This difference has a few rammifications. Open Source advocates mightn't be as bothered by user-hostile features as Free Software advocates. So what if this software tracks the user? It's open source, the user can change it if they don't like it.
Free Software advocates, on the other hand, tend to go to much further extents to respect the individual freedom and privacy of their users.
But that's just an empirical observation. In the end, all Free Software is Open Source Software, and almost all Open Source Software is Free Software.
Yours,
-- Carmen Bianca Bakker Technical Intern Free Software Foundation Europe e.V.
Hi Carmen,
There is a difference between the groups. "Open Source" is a tool or methadology, not a moral stance or ideology like "Free Software" is.
That's a popular stance, but I don't believe it's justified. In either case, if you hear someone talking about Open Source, you can not, from the term alone, determine whether that person ascribes to it a moral stance or not. You need to listen to what they're actually saying.
If they're talking about Open Source as a development paradigm alone, it might sometimes be prudent to remind them about our ethics. The same holds if someone talks about Free Software as a development paradigm alone.
Jonas Oberg schreef op do 16-11-2017 om 16:03 [+0100]:
That's a popular stance, but I don't believe it's justified. In either case, if you hear someone talking about Open Source, you can not, from the term alone, determine whether that person ascribes to it a moral stance or not. You need to listen to what they're actually saying.
For individuals, yes, probably, maybe. For organisations, however, their choice in public wordings is often telling. But then, I suppose it's more difficult to prescribe a moral stance to an organistion. Their actions often speak louder.
But empirically, I find that organisations and individuals who make an effort to say Free Software truly do care about ethics more than, say, Open Source hipsters at GitHub (which is itself proprietary and censorious).
If they're talking about Open Source as a development paradigm alone, it might sometimes be prudent to remind them about our ethics. The same holds if someone talks about Free Software as a development paradigm alone.
I think it's quite valuable to talk about Open Source as a development paradigm. "Free Software" doesn't work quite so well there, because the ethics of Free Software don't necessarily apply to the way in which one writes programs. Open Source fits well because it emphasises the publicness of the methodology.
Free Software (read also: OSS) is generally written with a method (the aforementioned Open Source methodology) you don't find elsewhere. You have the code public, the discussions public, and anybody can publicly submit code. This applies to both the cathedral and the bazaar. And---in my personal opinion---the public nature of this work encourages much better practices and behaviour than one would find in non-free software development.
Of course you can write Free Software without the previous methodology, but it's common enough, and nigh-exclusive to Free Software.
Yours sincerely,
-- Carmen Bianca Bakker Technical Intern Free Software Foundation Europe e.V.
Indeed, not all people in favor of lax/permissive licenses are "open source" proponents, because these people might as well shift their views in favor of copyleft licensing depending on how important the project is.
Also, just because a project denotes itself as "open source", this doesn't mean that it follows only the "open source" development model --- nor it means that it follows such ideology, specially considering that I was made aware that people who are not proponents of that methodoly (those that don't follow the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition), have been using this term to do some "openwashing" and ultimately luring people on getting a "premium"/"commercial" edition of some product ([1][2]).
For me, at least, the whole "open source" is "openwashing". ;)
Besides, there are some points which, as far as I know, the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition doesn't address. In particular, it doesn't seem to describe the instance of "open source" in regards to ruinous compromises, digital handcuffs, non-shareable non-functional data, state's technological sovereignty (vs. "technological neutrality"), services as software substitutes, proprietary formats, privacy, democracy, computers for voting, surveillance, education and communication centralization --- these are items which are up to each person to "augment" to their personal view of "open source".
Finally, with the assumption that a term used by a given project isn't enough to immediately qualify it as being in favor of open source or as a project that follows the free/libre software philosophy, then such evaluation is left for those who periodically have contact with the project's development or that are able to study decisions taken by such project. Once again, the evalutor's view of "open source" comes into play.
[1] https://sfconservancy.org/videos/2015-01-15_Bradley-Kuhn_Future-of-Copyleft_LCA-2015.webm.
[2] https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/copyleft-for-the-next-decade-a-comprehensive-plan/.
Jonas Oberg jonas@fsfe.org writes:
Hi Adonay,
I would posit though that to the extent there's a difference between two groups (I'm not convinced there are, at least not so distinctly), then the difference is not between whether they use "Free Software" or "Open Source" as a term, but precisely the differences you mention.
It would seem irrefutable there are groups which prefer permissive licensing, and there are groups which prefer copyleft licensing. But it seems divisive and unnecessary to ascribe on those groups some general views of what term they may or may not use.
Adonay Felipe Nogueira schreef op do 16-11-2017 om 11:25 [-0200]:
Finally, Stallman also states ([1]) that supporters/followers/proponents --- and projects supporting/following --- free/libre software *philosophy* should avoid both "FOSS" (because of the misleading "free" part which reminds people of "gratis") and "FLOSS" (because it's too neutral).
Important to note is that he does prefer "FLOSS" for neutrality[2]:
Thus, if you want to be neutral between free software and open source, and clear about them, the way to achieve that is to say “FLOSS,” not “FOSS.”
We in the free software movement don't use either of these terms, because we don't want to be neutral on the political question. We stand for freedom, and we show it every time—by saying “free” and “libre”— or “free (libre)”.
-- Carmen Bianca Bakker Technical Intern Free Software Foundation Europe e.V.
You are indeed correct.
If one wants to be neutral, one can use "FLOSS".
The same reference states that free/libre software activists don't need to be neutral, and this is what I said earlier. ;)
Carmen Bianca Bakker carmenbianca@fsfe.org writes:
Important to note is that he does prefer "FLOSS" for neutrality[2]:
-- Carmen Bianca Bakker Technical Intern Free Software Foundation Europe e.V.
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion