3 ms·

Before now there was no conflict for the the term free software. When it accomplished the same goal for everyone many people just didn't care about a precise me

Before now there was no conflict for the the term free software. When it accomplished the same goal for everyone many people just didn't care about a precise meaning. It was "free enough" for all views to fit in the same tent. Large corporations are now stepping the unwritten meaning held by one portion who were previously satisfied with the overall outcome. Before, these people didn't care who owned the term as long as the goal was achieved. Now that the situation has changed these people want the phrase to mean what they always believed it meant. Even though you might not have been aware this difference even existed. The meanings of words change with the progress of humanity. Nobody gets to hold on to a word like free just because they're comfortable with its current usage.

danShumway 7y ago
That argument assumes a conclusion I reject -- I disagree that the culturally understood definition of FOSS has already changed outside of specific set of businesses. And in the same way that nobody gets to hold onto a word indefinitely just because they dislike change, it is also true that nobody gets to redefine a word just because it helps their marketing. The current evolution of language like "free" is a political movement pushed by political actors; it's not based on an observation of how culture has evolved, but on a belief about how culture should evolve -- specifically how culture should evolve to benefit specific business interests. In other words, Mongo didn't wake up one morning and discover that FOSS had changed, Mongo made a decision to try and change FOSS. Of course, businesses and critics have the right to argue about FOSS definitions, and traditional FOSS advocates have a right to tell them to buzz off and stop stealing the positive associations that exist in no small part because we were dogmatic about definitions. My position is that there are scenarios where dogmatism about words is genuinely important, and that sometimes, changing definitions should be resisted. The muddying of FOSS is no different from the muddying of words like "organic" or "humane" as labels for food products. Without a strong governing organization like FSF to prevent the dilution of these terms, the terms will quickly become meaningless and useless for end-users and consumers. FOSS may not be a purely prescriptive term, but that doesn't mean that every database product on the market should be able to manipulate it whenever they feel like they aren't making enough money.
- cy_hauser 7y ago
  While I can't help you with your opinions and beliefs I do understand what you're saying. MongoDB may have done this purely to for marketing. They may also genuinely believe the change still leaves their code being free software. I don't know anyone there. The change, if there is one, won't be because of you or me. It will happen over a few years time or it won't happen. It will be driven by what people accept and what they don't. A few extremely loud voices may turn the tide in either direction so maybe there's good reason for each side digging in their heels and making noises. Either way, each individual's idea of free software will exist under the names that evolve out of this skirmish. Both businesses and coders will adapt.

danShumway 7y ago

That argument assumes a conclusion I reject -- I disagree that the culturally understood definition of FOSS has already changed outside of specific set of businesses. And in the same way that nobody gets to hold onto a word indefinitely just because they dislike change, it is also true that nobody gets to redefine a word just because it helps their marketing. The current evolution of language like "free" is a political movement pushed by political actors; it's not based on an observation of how culture has evolved, but on a belief about how culture should evolve -- specifically how culture should evolve to benefit specific business interests. In other words, Mongo didn't wake up one morning and discover that FOSS had changed, Mongo made a decision to try and change FOSS. Of course, businesses and critics have the right to argue about FOSS definitions, and traditional FOSS advocates have a right to tell them to buzz off and stop stealing the positive associations that exist in no small part because we were dogmatic about definitions. My position is that there are scenarios where dogmatism about words is genuinely important, and that sometimes, changing definitions should be resisted. The muddying of FOSS is no different from the muddying of words like "organic" or "humane" as labels for food products. Without a strong governing organization like FSF to prevent the dilution of these terms, the terms will quickly become meaningless and useless for end-users and consumers. FOSS may not be a purely prescriptive term, but that doesn't mean that every database product on the market should be able to manipulate it whenever they feel like they aren't making enough money.

cy_hauser 7y ago
While I can't help you with your opinions and beliefs I do understand what you're saying. MongoDB may have done this purely to for marketing. They may also genuinely believe the change still leaves their code being free software. I don't know anyone there. The change, if there is one, won't be because of you or me. It will happen over a few years time or it won't happen. It will be driven by what people accept and what they don't. A few extremely loud voices may turn the tide in either direction so maybe there's good reason for each side digging in their heels and making noises. Either way, each individual's idea of free software will exist under the names that evolve out of this skirmish. Both businesses and coders will adapt.