3 ms·

Not to be confused with the identically-named article by Steve Klabnik from around the same time: https://steveklabnik.com/writing/what-comes-after-open-source

by ximm 5y ago

Not to be confused with the identically-named article by Steve Klabnik from around the same time: https://steveklabnik.com/writing/what-comes-after-open-source https://steveklabnik.com/writing/what-comes-after-open-sourc...

saurik 5y ago
Wow... this article (the not-the-OP one you linked to here, from the guy I mostly know from his missionary work for the Rust ecosystem) represents a complete misunderstanding of what the Free Software movement is prioritizing... it was painfully disappointing (but I guess not surprising) to read this :(. The core disagreement between the philosophy of Free Software advocates and the world of modern Open Source developers is that the former is fighting for the rights of end users to analyze and even specifics modify the software they use and to achieve this they are willing to severely limit developer freedoms. This is a move that many developers don't like, but this article is somehow missing that disagreement entirely and us claiming that Free Software is somehow missing the point because developers actually want "[a list of things involving the production of software]" that the Free Software people are going to point out does not in any way help achieve freedom for users.
- steveklabnik 5y ago
  I fully understand that the free software movement believes that they are doing things for the rights of end users.
  - jka 5y ago
    I believe that too, and believe that companies (handwavy) are looking forward to permissive open source licenses becoming de rigeur so that they can build and bundle projects cheaply without contributing back (proprietary-style hacks behind closed doors will suffice to ship; production costs reduce, and, strategically, air -- developer time -- to the FOSS ecosystem becomes gradually easier to stifle).

3 ms·

Not to be confused with the identically-named article by Steve Klabnik from around the same time: https://steveklabnik.com/writing/what-comes-after-open-source

by ximm 5y ago

saurik 5y ago
Wow... this article (the not-the-OP one you linked to here, from the guy I mostly know from his missionary work for the Rust ecosystem) represents a complete misunderstanding of what the Free Software movement is prioritizing... it was painfully disappointing (but I guess not surprising) to read this :(. The core disagreement between the philosophy of Free Software advocates and the world of modern Open Source developers is that the former is fighting for the rights of end users to analyze and even specifics modify the software they use and to achieve this they are willing to severely limit developer freedoms. This is a move that many developers don't like, but this article is somehow missing that disagreement entirely and us claiming that Free Software is somehow missing the point because developers actually want "[a list of things involving the production of software]" that the Free Software people are going to point out does not in any way help achieve freedom for users.
- steveklabnik 5y ago
  I fully understand that the free software movement believes that they are doing things for the rights of end users.
  - jka 5y ago
    I believe that too, and believe that companies (handwavy) are looking forward to permissive open source licenses becoming de rigeur so that they can build and bundle projects cheaply without contributing back (proprietary-style hacks behind closed doors will suffice to ship; production costs reduce, and, strategically, air -- developer time -- to the FOSS ecosystem becomes gradually easier to stifle).