3 ms·
> they did a lot to put open source on the map Nope nope nope. They've publicly been the biggest voice to erase "open source" from the map since it was coined.
by rando289 11y ago
> they did a lot to put open source on the map
Nope nope nope. They've publicly been the biggest voice to erase "open source" from the map since it was coined. All while acknowledging that it has mostly the same goals as the free software movement. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.e...
- oldmanjay 11y agoThe unfortunate thing about gnu and the fsf is that they think connotation management and "clever" wordplay are effective marketing strategies.
- rando289 11y ago"Open source" was designed for the sole purpose of being "clever" wordplay and an effective marketing strategy, so you really can't blame fsf on that one. Words matter. See "pro life" vs "pro choice", see "terrorist" vs "criminal" see "migrant" vs "alleged refuge", etc. etc. The tech press are mouthpieces for the big corporations, and all of the big corporations do not want free software messing with their profits, so they use and coin words which align with their interests. It's perfectly natural for fsf to use different words.
- johncolanduoni 11y agoI'm aware of their thoughts on the distinction between open and free software. However these are (a) lost on most people involved in open source and (b) largely irrelevant as far as the FSF's projects being a large part of GNU/Linux, one of the most widely used open source/free software projects, or their dedication to seeing some key legal questions that affect both open source and free software play out in court.