2 ms·
I think you have it exactly wrong. The idea of Free Software, at its most extreme, exists as a useful endpoint of an "Overton Window" for software. Which is to
by jrm4 4y ago
I think you have it exactly wrong.
The idea of Free Software, at its most extreme, exists as a useful endpoint of an "Overton Window" for software. Which is to say, all software benefits from its existence even if they don't e.g. sign on to the GPL. You're forced to consider it as a possibility.
Without it, we'd probably think of "Open Source" as the most "open" software can be -- which, as OP proves, is quite wrong and nebulous.
- edgyquant 4y agoNo I have it right, because most people stop listening when you talk about more abstract “freedom” when what they’ve got is literally (the good) and abstractly (the implementation) free. I get it’s an Overton window and admitted they moved it. However they’ve (FSF) failed to adapt to the current times and branch from there.
- jrm4 4y agoI think you're missing the possibility (and unfortunately, I would say the inevitability) of backsliding. I don't think we need anything adapting as near as much as we need people to "hold the line" or "stop loss." For me, the perfect concrete case of this was here reading about youtube-dl being removed for Github. It became clear to me that a not-insignificant number of professionals in this space absolutely equated "deleted from Github" as "literally gone forever such that no one could have it again." People will forget about the idea of free software and taking a copy of the code home with you as an important idea to be preserved, unless the FSF et al remain.