3 ms·

There are people who are put off by the social supposition and patronization inherent in insisting on the semantic distinction of "Free [FLOSS] and Open-Source"

by nupark 16y ago

There are people who are put off by the social supposition and patronization inherent in insisting on the semantic distinction of "Free [FLOSS] and Open-Source". This is predicated on the notion of a non-exclusive ownership of "free," as in, the GPL bring "more free" than the MIT license, despite the fact that many in the intended audience would disagree. "Open source" is a sufficiently inclusive term.

skore 16y ago
...And then there are others who care about the history of how Free and Open Source Software came about. (Do note that I'm from Germany, so for me "Frei", the literal translation of "Free", is closer to Freedom than it is to Free Beer.) Also note that proponents do not claim ownership of "free" in any sort, but of "Free". Sorry to be nitpicking on this, but it is the name. Likewise, there is no claim that the GPL is "more free" - if you talk to somebody who has a good understanding of this, they will agree that the GPL is less "free" than MIT. However, I and others would argue that the slight reduction in "freedom" is actually worthwhile because it mitigates certain social risks by strengthening the Share And Share Alike aspect.
- nupark 16y ago
  Most people are well aware of the history; "Free" is a generic term, and attempting to claim it from other open source developers is patronizing. "Open Source" is inclusive of GPL licensed software -- I don't see the need for a GNU/Linux style distinction in a survey targeted at all open source developers.
  - skore 16y ago
    I do not wish to claim it. But when I and others say "Free Software", we mean a particular thing. Whether or not you agree with that makes no difference to the reality of the history of the movement. And yes, "Open Source" includes GPL licensed software, but it does not include the philosophy that I'm interested in and that I think to be vital to community cohesion.
- jasonkester 16y ago
  Frankly, I wish there were a term I could use for the code that I make public that isn't in any way associated with some silly "movement" that wants to make my code "free" or otherwise taint it with some form of pretentiousness that I don't intend. It's code that I'm throwing out onto the internet for other people to use. I can't for the life of me understand why some people think it's so important as to split hairs about definitions and argue about licenses for it.
  - nupark 16y ago
    That would be "open source".
  - skore 16y ago
    Because there are some people who care about the social and philosophical implications of their work or hobby. If you don't need that, that's fine. Go with "Open Source", or "Copyleft" or whatever suits you. The only reason why we insist that it is important is because there are others who continue to push that it is not. I never really understood that particular color of "activism", but to each his own, I guess.

by nupark 16y ago

skore 16y ago

...And then there are others who care about the history of how Free and Open Source Software came about. (Do note that I'm from Germany, so for me "Frei", the literal translation of "Free", is closer to Freedom than it is to Free Beer.) Also note that proponents do not claim ownership of "free" in any sort, but of "Free". Sorry to be nitpicking on this, but it is the name. Likewise, there is no claim that the GPL is "more free" - if you talk to somebody who has a good understanding of this, they will agree that the GPL is less "free" than MIT. However, I and others would argue that the slight reduction in "freedom" is actually worthwhile because it mitigates certain social risks by strengthening the Share And Share Alike aspect.

nupark 16y ago
Most people are well aware of the history; "Free" is a generic term, and attempting to claim it from other open source developers is patronizing. "Open Source" is inclusive of GPL licensed software -- I don't see the need for a GNU/Linux style distinction in a survey targeted at all open source developers.
- skore 16y ago
  I do not wish to claim it. But when I and others say "Free Software", we mean a particular thing. Whether or not you agree with that makes no difference to the reality of the history of the movement. And yes, "Open Source" includes GPL licensed software, but it does not include the philosophy that I'm interested in and that I think to be vital to community cohesion.
jasonkester 16y ago
Frankly, I wish there were a term I could use for the code that I make public that isn't in any way associated with some silly "movement" that wants to make my code "free" or otherwise taint it with some form of pretentiousness that I don't intend. It's code that I'm throwing out onto the internet for other people to use. I can't for the life of me understand why some people think it's so important as to split hairs about definitions and argue about licenses for it.
- nupark 16y ago
  That would be "open source".
- skore 16y ago
  Because there are some people who care about the social and philosophical implications of their work or hobby. If you don't need that, that's fine. Go with "Open Source", or "Copyleft" or whatever suits you. The only reason why we insist that it is important is because there are others who continue to push that it is not. I never really understood that particular color of "activism", but to each his own, I guess.