FSFE position on "open core"

Mirko Boehm mirko at fsfe.org
Wed Jan 8 11:02:03 UTC 2014


On 07.01.2014 14:35, Hugo Roy wrote:
>> Is Slideshare a Free Software company, because it is not
>> >licensing proprietary software? And once a business is labeled a
>> >"Free Software company", what does that really mean? It is still not
>> >an entity operating with the common good in mind.
> Well, no because they are not software companies to begin with.
>
> http://hroy.eu/posts/facebook_open-source_company/

Slideshare certainly is. However I am arguing that labeling a company a 
"Free Software company" is of no use, and does not even help promote 
freedom through Free Software.

What if a company that solely produces a Free Software product and a 
hardware manufacturer that uses proprietary firmware merge? The first 
will loose the label of being a "Free Software company". Now does that 
change the value of the contributions this company made to Free 
Software? The same goes for companies that have mixed proprietary and 
Free Software strategies. Are IBM's contributions to the Linux kernel 
less valuable because IBM also sells Lotus Notes?

We need to promote the benefits of the freedoms provided by our 
licenses, not condemn people for not agreeing with us. I see the 
labeling as a "Free Software company" only used for the latter, and 
never for the first. That is why I suggest we drop it, and promote our 
idea of freedom, but respect the decisions that people make for themselves.

...Open Core hurts Free Software... to go back to the original topic.

Cheers,

Mirko.

-- 
Mirko Boehm | mirko at kde.org | KDE e.V.
FSFE Fellow, FSFE Team Germany
Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer



More information about the Discussion mailing list