4 ms·

It is still valuable to ask people not to use the term "open source", and to explain why. The free software movement is a liberation movement. As we have seen

It is still valuable to ask people not to use the term "open source", and to explain why. The free software movement is a liberation movement. As we have seen in the ~30 years since the movement started, when users are not allowed examine, modify, and share the software runs on their computers that software is used against them. Proprietary software is all about gaining power over users. It is not a theory anymore. It is an overwhelming, proved fact. The "open source" brand was created to combat the liberation movement. The people who devised the "open source" name and promoted it oppose the free software movement. The "open source" founders set out to advance the cause of gaining power over users. The free software movement fights for freedom. The "open source" instigators wanted to interfere with that fight, to distract people from it, and above all, to make it harder for the libre software movement to gain technical advantages over proprietary software.

EvanPlaice 11y ago
> founders set out to advance the cause of gaining power over users I'd argue that GNU set out to advance the cause of gaining power over developers. Specifically, to place arbitrary legal restrictions on software so devs who use it are forced to buy into the ideology of GNU. The ironic thing about FLOSS is that it acts counter to the ideals of libre. There's no freedom in restricting how open source code is developed. In short, it enforces exclusivity. It's intended for developers who want to maintain ownership of any/all development of the code they produce. To remain the de-facto benevolent dictators for life whether or not that is good for the health of a project. RMS didn't create GPL out of some greater sense of altruism. Watch his talks about the early days before GPL. He created it in spite of the developers he worked with who moved on to industry. Stallman never moved on to industry and has spent a lifetime hiding away in academia and/or making a living off of awards and public speaking appearances where he preaches his ideology as canon. You know who doesn't make a living from FLOSS? the thousands of contributors who helped make his projects the success they are today. Funny how RMS never acknowledges their effort. Hurd will never deliver on it's promises and instead GPL piggy-backed on the success of linux to the point where (from a legal standpoint) both are essentially inseparable. ----- As for 'open source'... True freedom is allowing others to extend/improve the code for their own uses. I prefer 'open source' because it fosters the degree of freedom that the GPL only superficially claims to promote. If others find value in my contributions and leadership then they'll support my projects and the direction I take. If somebody comes along that does a better job, so be it. That just means I probably have more room for improvement. Removing one's ego from the process creates something much more valuable. An inclusive environment where others can join in, grow together, and move on to better things in life if they find the opportunity.
- belorn 11y ago
  > I'd argue that GNU set out to advance the cause of gaining power over developers Power that is shared equally is not held "over" anyone. Share-and-share alike is not power, its equality. > The ironic thing about FLOSS is that it acts counter to the ideals of libre According to which philosophy? John Locke (1632–1704) rejected several hundred years ago the notion that liberty should have no restrictions. Thus, freedom is not as Sir Robert Filmer defines it: 'A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws.' ... Freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. Freedom of people under government is to be under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society and made by the lawmaking power established in it. Persons have a right or liberty to (1) follow their own will in all things that the law has not prohibited and (2) not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others Rules that are common to everyone are not power, and its not counter to the ideals of libre. Shield me against the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others, and I will have liberty. Proprietary licenses and DRM are frameworks that arbitrary limits who can modify the software, who can read it, and who can use and share it.
  - EvanPlaice 11y ago
    "(2) not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others" If you want to put it to the test, try creating a legal derivative work of a GPL/LGPL licensed project. The license has enough grey area that the only guarantee is that the legal system could one day be used to subject you to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others. Via legal battles initiated by malicious actors and/or as a result of contributions by contributors who don't fully understand the depth of the GPL/LGPL restrictions. I vote 'no confidence' in the GPL/LGPL license's purported guarantee of freedom. For the same reasons I wouldn't trust an enemy to always speak kindly of me behind my back. The GPL/LGPL were bourne out of the desire to publicly spite others. They were initially accepted as canon because they were the first copyleft licenses. I'll never feel safe or protected from legal recourse if I contribute to a GPL/LGPL project because I can never guarantee that the codebase is a completely original work. From a legal standpoint 'good faith' simply isn't good enough. It's a personal choice. If you feel completely safe contributing under the terms, by all means, I'm not trying to stop you. "Proprietary licenses and DRM are frameworks that arbitrary limits who can modify the software, who can read it, and who can use and share it." By all means, I'm not advocating for proprietary licenses or DRM. I'm speaking strictly in terms of OSS (ex MIT) vs FLOSS (GPL/LGPL). If a company or dev decides to use a proprietary license to protect their invested time/effort, that's their legal right. DRM is... Well, I'm not going to touch that with a 20ft pole. Hopefully, one day we can find a means to make DRM completely irrelevant and/or unnecessary.

EvanPlaice 11y ago

> founders set out to advance the cause of gaining power over users I'd argue that GNU set out to advance the cause of gaining power over developers. Specifically, to place arbitrary legal restrictions on software so devs who use it are forced to buy into the ideology of GNU. The ironic thing about FLOSS is that it acts counter to the ideals of libre. There's no freedom in restricting how open source code is developed. In short, it enforces exclusivity. It's intended for developers who want to maintain ownership of any/all development of the code they produce. To remain the de-facto benevolent dictators for life whether or not that is good for the health of a project. RMS didn't create GPL out of some greater sense of altruism. Watch his talks about the early days before GPL. He created it in spite of the developers he worked with who moved on to industry. Stallman never moved on to industry and has spent a lifetime hiding away in academia and/or making a living off of awards and public speaking appearances where he preaches his ideology as canon. You know who doesn't make a living from FLOSS? the thousands of contributors who helped make his projects the success they are today. Funny how RMS never acknowledges their effort. Hurd will never deliver on it's promises and instead GPL piggy-backed on the success of linux to the point where (from a legal standpoint) both are essentially inseparable. ----- As for 'open source'... True freedom is allowing others to extend/improve the code for their own uses. I prefer 'open source' because it fosters the degree of freedom that the GPL only superficially claims to promote. If others find value in my contributions and leadership then they'll support my projects and the direction I take. If somebody comes along that does a better job, so be it. That just means I probably have more room for improvement. Removing one's ego from the process creates something much more valuable. An inclusive environment where others can join in, grow together, and move on to better things in life if they find the opportunity.

belorn 11y ago
> I'd argue that GNU set out to advance the cause of gaining power over developers Power that is shared equally is not held "over" anyone. Share-and-share alike is not power, its equality. > The ironic thing about FLOSS is that it acts counter to the ideals of libre According to which philosophy? John Locke (1632–1704) rejected several hundred years ago the notion that liberty should have no restrictions. Thus, freedom is not as Sir Robert Filmer defines it: 'A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws.' ... Freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. Freedom of people under government is to be under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society and made by the lawmaking power established in it. Persons have a right or liberty to (1) follow their own will in all things that the law has not prohibited and (2) not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others Rules that are common to everyone are not power, and its not counter to the ideals of libre. Shield me against the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others, and I will have liberty. Proprietary licenses and DRM are frameworks that arbitrary limits who can modify the software, who can read it, and who can use and share it.
- EvanPlaice 11y ago
  "(2) not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others" If you want to put it to the test, try creating a legal derivative work of a GPL/LGPL licensed project. The license has enough grey area that the only guarantee is that the legal system could one day be used to subject you to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others. Via legal battles initiated by malicious actors and/or as a result of contributions by contributors who don't fully understand the depth of the GPL/LGPL restrictions. I vote 'no confidence' in the GPL/LGPL license's purported guarantee of freedom. For the same reasons I wouldn't trust an enemy to always speak kindly of me behind my back. The GPL/LGPL were bourne out of the desire to publicly spite others. They were initially accepted as canon because they were the first copyleft licenses. I'll never feel safe or protected from legal recourse if I contribute to a GPL/LGPL project because I can never guarantee that the codebase is a completely original work. From a legal standpoint 'good faith' simply isn't good enough. It's a personal choice. If you feel completely safe contributing under the terms, by all means, I'm not trying to stop you. "Proprietary licenses and DRM are frameworks that arbitrary limits who can modify the software, who can read it, and who can use and share it." By all means, I'm not advocating for proprietary licenses or DRM. I'm speaking strictly in terms of OSS (ex MIT) vs FLOSS (GPL/LGPL). If a company or dev decides to use a proprietary license to protect their invested time/effort, that's their legal right. DRM is... Well, I'm not going to touch that with a 20ft pole. Hopefully, one day we can find a means to make DRM completely irrelevant and/or unnecessary.