3 ms·

you are swapping Free Software with open source everywhere. open source was coined exactly to stride away from any spirit and ethical standings, focusing only

you are swapping Free Software with open source everywhere. open source was coined exactly to stride away from any spirit and ethical standings, focusing only on the code and its practical advantages when available to be shared. This way, enterprise can be more likely to accept it. (also because English-based enterprise is deemed too dumb to understand free can mean two different things) Free Software is the thing that sees practical and ethical advantages as an indivisible unit. And it's fine to sell Free Software as long as you guarantee the buyer's right to acquire the source, in the case of the GPL for example.

jchw 6y ago
That’s the FSF point of view, and I and others respectfully disagree. I don’t believe open source is better because of ethics, I do think open source would not work if everyone were as unethical as possible. I will continue to use the term “open source” to refer to the whole shebang, which has been best for communicating to most people who aren’t fighting over terminology semantics as a means to push ideology.
- dancemethis 6y ago
  As a suggestion, be slightly more careful when stipulating sides. The FSF, mine and others interpretation contrasted with the OSI, yours and others would be a fairer statement. There are individuals using "Free Software", and there are organizations using "open source". One of the key points of the creation of the term "open source" was the distancing from the ethical aspects of Free Software - to turn its face on it and "hope for the best". Yet, of course the ramifications of ethical creation, usage and sharing are usually still there on "open source" projects, since it's how things often tend to go when creating Free Software - _despite_ the new term, not _because_ of it. > I will continue to use the term “open source” to refer to the whole shebang, which has been best for communicating to most people who aren’t fighting over terminology semantics as a means to push ideology. By charging "open source" with the ethical+practical unity of Free Software, you are doing exactly what the very creators and advocates of the term wanted to avoid - "ideology". Therefore this point sounds so... weird?

jchw 6y ago

That’s the FSF point of view, and I and others respectfully disagree. I don’t believe open source is better because of ethics, I do think open source would not work if everyone were as unethical as possible. I will continue to use the term “open source” to refer to the whole shebang, which has been best for communicating to most people who aren’t fighting over terminology semantics as a means to push ideology.

dancemethis 6y ago
As a suggestion, be slightly more careful when stipulating sides. The FSF, mine and others interpretation contrasted with the OSI, yours and others would be a fairer statement. There are individuals using "Free Software", and there are organizations using "open source". One of the key points of the creation of the term "open source" was the distancing from the ethical aspects of Free Software - to turn its face on it and "hope for the best". Yet, of course the ramifications of ethical creation, usage and sharing are usually still there on "open source" projects, since it's how things often tend to go when creating Free Software - _despite_ the new term, not _because_ of it. > I will continue to use the term “open source” to refer to the whole shebang, which has been best for communicating to most people who aren’t fighting over terminology semantics as a means to push ideology. By charging "open source" with the ethical+practical unity of Free Software, you are doing exactly what the very creators and advocates of the term wanted to avoid - "ideology". Therefore this point sounds so... weird?