4 ms·

So, for the sake of argument: - I'm an author of some FOSS software - I use Slack as the communication platform for said project for XYZ reasons How do you s

by tobz 11y ago

So, for the sake of argument: - I'm an author of some FOSS software - I use Slack as the communication platform for said project for XYZ reasons How do you suggest I word the README for my project? Do I tell/advise people to try other, less functional software if that software is subjectively more "open" than mine? Would my project somehow be "better" if I run all of my own infrastructure for it -- chat, bug tracking, etc -- using only FOSS software on FOSS hardware in my basement? I mean, the logical conclusion here is that no FOSS project is really a FOSS project unless Richard Stallman could look at it and say "sure, morally, I have no problem using that project", right? (This is off the path of the blog post in question, but I'm really interested in this sub-conversation.)

cyphar 11y ago
If there is no way to contact you without using free software, I would probably just make a fork of your project. If you can't just sit in an IRC channel on freenode or just post an email I can use, then I don't understand why you are a maintainer of a free software project. Sure, use Slack if you wish, but don't force me to use it if I want to contact you.
- cdcarter 11y ago
  I imagine that many maintainers who don't necessarily feel as dogmatic about free software hold the belief that "if you wish to contact me, you will use the tool I say." I've certainly "maintained" projects that are free software that I had no real desire of spending much time on, so if someone had a question it better come the way that I want, otherwise I can just ignore it. It's not a very kind or classy position, but I think a lot of people feel this way.
  - cyphar 11y ago
    How many maintainers won't accept patchsets by email?
mikegerwitz 11y ago
You don't need to run your own infrastructure---you just need to use services that are compatible with free software. This highlights the difference between "open source" and free software: by using and recommending Slack, you make a statement that the freedoms of those who would collaborate with your project are not important. In general, projects that identify with the free software philosophy or the "open source" development methodology can collaborate with either community just fine---there are shared interests and goals. But if you use a freedom-denying service, then you cripple a community of contributors. It does not matter if RMS personally says that he is okay with a particular project---the four freedoms are clear and basic; we don't need his personal endorsement. Further, just because you use Slack, that doesn't mean that your project is less free than another---if it's free software, then it's free software. But the community surrounding your project is shaped by your actions. And if the pressure is great enough, there may be no choice but for free software users to fork the project, and perhaps hope for better collaboration in the future.
- tobz 11y ago
  So there's the issue of software being "open", as in being able to see the source code. Then there's the part about who is running the software. Do you personally feel more safe, or better, whatever the adjective you want to use would be... about logging in to a remote server that uses software you can read the source for versus software you can't read the source for? It seems like a sticky problem because even if Freenode purports to be open, and you can read the source code of what software they say they use, you can't actually see the source code powering their service, right? Like you can't just SSH to the boxes, and look at the source and say "ok, they haven't messed with anything, so I'm ok signing into their servers". Like, you could see the very JavaScript running in your browser. You downloaded it, it's running locally. You can't see the backend, though. You can't tell how your data is being used. That's the thing that feels scarier to me, although admittedly, I use plenty of services based on closed source software as well as open source software, and it doesn't really give me too much pause. I guess I just don't really understand the fervor around the "openness" aspect if you're not actually the one running the service. You're still at the mercy of a service operator who could be eroding the "freedom" you think you have.
oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
Which part of "can you view the source" is subjective?

by tobz 11y ago

cyphar 11y ago

If there is no way to contact you without using free software, I would probably just make a fork of your project. If you can't just sit in an IRC channel on freenode or just post an email I can use, then I don't understand why you are a maintainer of a free software project. Sure, use Slack if you wish, but don't force me to use it if I want to contact you.

cdcarter 11y ago
I imagine that many maintainers who don't necessarily feel as dogmatic about free software hold the belief that "if you wish to contact me, you will use the tool I say." I've certainly "maintained" projects that are free software that I had no real desire of spending much time on, so if someone had a question it better come the way that I want, otherwise I can just ignore it. It's not a very kind or classy position, but I think a lot of people feel this way.
- cyphar 11y ago
  How many maintainers won't accept patchsets by email?

mikegerwitz 11y ago

You don't need to run your own infrastructure---you just need to use services that are compatible with free software. This highlights the difference between "open source" and free software: by using and recommending Slack, you make a statement that the freedoms of those who would collaborate with your project are not important. In general, projects that identify with the free software philosophy or the "open source" development methodology can collaborate with either community just fine---there are shared interests and goals. But if you use a freedom-denying service, then you cripple a community of contributors. It does not matter if RMS personally says that he is okay with a particular project---the four freedoms are clear and basic; we don't need his personal endorsement. Further, just because you use Slack, that doesn't mean that your project is less free than another---if it's free software, then it's free software. But the community surrounding your project is shaped by your actions. And if the pressure is great enough, there may be no choice but for free software users to fork the project, and perhaps hope for better collaboration in the future.

tobz 11y ago
So there's the issue of software being "open", as in being able to see the source code. Then there's the part about who is running the software. Do you personally feel more safe, or better, whatever the adjective you want to use would be... about logging in to a remote server that uses software you can read the source for versus software you can't read the source for? It seems like a sticky problem because even if Freenode purports to be open, and you can read the source code of what software they say they use, you can't actually see the source code powering their service, right? Like you can't just SSH to the boxes, and look at the source and say "ok, they haven't messed with anything, so I'm ok signing into their servers". Like, you could see the very JavaScript running in your browser. You downloaded it, it's running locally. You can't see the backend, though. You can't tell how your data is being used. That's the thing that feels scarier to me, although admittedly, I use plenty of services based on closed source software as well as open source software, and it doesn't really give me too much pause. I guess I just don't really understand the fervor around the "openness" aspect if you're not actually the one running the service. You're still at the mercy of a service operator who could be eroding the "freedom" you think you have.

oneeyedpigeon 11y ago

Which part of "can you view the source" is subjective?