3 ms·

Sorry, but that sounds like you have never actually 'governed' an OSS.

by arekkas 10y ago

milesrout 10y ago
I assume you mean 'a free software project' rather than 'an OSS'. Well no, that's my point. Free software projects don't have governors, they have maintainers. They don't have non-profits and boards and diversity quotas and codes of conducts, they have mailing lists and BDFLs and coding standards and banhammers. This politicisation and corporatisation of free software is not good for free software.
- lclarkmichalek 10y ago
  Free software has been a political statement from day zero.
  - milesrout 10y ago
    Only if you have an absurdly broad definition of politics.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Stallman has been pretty clear on the political nature from early on. What gives you the impression that free software hasn't been political? Perhaps there's a difference in definition of free software. With GNU, and the Free Software Movement, the Free is definitely free as in freedom, which is a political concept. From the Free Software Movement: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The four essential freedoms A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of being free, we consider them all equally unethical. From the GNU Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU Richard Stallman, the founder of the project, views GNU as a "technical means to a social end". Relatedly Lawrence Lessig states in his introduction to the 2nd edition of Stallman's book Free Software, Free Society that in it Stallman has written about "the social aspects of software and how Free Software can create community and social justice." That sounds pretty political to me.

Sorry, but that sounds like you have never actually 'governed' an OSS.

by arekkas 10y ago

Sorry, but that sounds like you have never actually 'governed' an OSS.

I assume you mean 'a free software project' rather than 'an OSS'. Well no, that's my point. Free software projects don't have governors, they have maintainers. They don't have non-profits and boards and diversity quotas and codes of conducts, they have mailing lists and BDFLs and coding standards and banhammers. This politicisation and corporatisation of free software is not good for free software.

lclarkmichalek 10y ago
Free software has been a political statement from day zero.
- milesrout 10y ago
  Only if you have an absurdly broad definition of politics.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Stallman has been pretty clear on the political nature from early on. What gives you the impression that free software hasn't been political? Perhaps there's a difference in definition of free software. With GNU, and the Free Software Movement, the Free is definitely free as in freedom, which is a political concept. From the Free Software Movement: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The four essential freedoms A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of being free, we consider them all equally unethical. From the GNU Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU Richard Stallman, the founder of the project, views GNU as a "technical means to a social end". Relatedly Lawrence Lessig states in his introduction to the 2nd edition of Stallman's book Free Software, Free Society that in it Stallman has written about "the social aspects of software and how Free Software can create community and social justice." That sounds pretty political to me.