4 ms·

I assume that implies you are not proponents of software freedom? The distinction may be important for some people, if only for placing trust in your long-term

by F3nd0 4y ago

I assume that implies you are not proponents of software freedom? The distinction may be important for some people, if only for placing trust in your long-term vision.

vince_at_iode 4y ago
I don't see well the point in this remark. Releasing free software has many consequences, and among them, one is to give freedom to people. Giving freedom to people is however the starting point of our story: we wanted to give the freedom to use a smartphone without, as much as possible, being spied on by tech giants. We accomplished (probably imperfectly, but honestly) that even with closed source software, for the people who put their trust in us. So no, our primary goal has never been to create a free software, just for the beauty of creating a free software: we're more interested in people freedom. Releasing the sources is just one step beyond, to increase trust in our work, and attract more people to a new way of considering their smartphone, whether it is directly with our rom or other roms that can now use our work. We even chose to license the heart of our developments with the AGPL, to guarantee that improvements made by others will be beneficial to everyone. That being said, as a developer who likes the code for itself, I like the idea to create a free software ;-)
capableweb 4y ago
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but how does open sourcing something imply they are not proponents of software freedom? For me, it would imply (or be rather explicit) that they are proponents of software freedom.
- tokai 4y ago
  Free software is all about user freedoms. Open source is about the source being open. It is two positions on access to software and code with different ideological foundations.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    If the source was just published without any open source license, I'd call that "public code" or "code released", not specifically "open source" which comes with a different understanding than just the code being released under any specific open source license. So if the goal is user freedom, how would open source limit that? You have the right to modify the software and you have the right to re-distribute it, together or without your own changes. What "user freedom" is missing from this?
    - tokai 4y ago
      Why don't you look it up? Open Source was a reaction to the political implications of Free Software, that didn't float well with the private sector. The fault lines between the two are quite clear.
      - capableweb 4y ago
        Why don't you reply with your opinion instead? How fun would the HN comments be if we just refer people to other places, without actually referring to any specific things? You're not actually refuting anything I say, just give some vague "go look it up"...
- F3nd0 4y ago
  Open-sourcing something does not imply that¹ at all, since open-sourcing almost always equals to releasing as free software. It's the choice to talk about the source now being open, as opposed to the users now being free, that reflects a different points of focus in the wider community, and tends to reflect one's motivations and point of view as well. If you hold the firm belief that software users ought to be free, and that is your main motivation for releasing something as free software, you are likely to talk about it. If you give users freedom 'on accident' while opening up your source, whether it's because that's convenient for you, you think that's mutually beneficial, or you just choose whatever term seems the most popular since you don't have a belief of your own to base the choice on, it goes to show that users' freedom is not your primary concern. Now you might not necessarily think that's a bad thing, but if you do, it might be a good idea not to put your faith in an entity that doesn't share your concerns, and is only aligned with them on accident, for the moment. 1. EDIT: 'that' meaning 'not being proponents of software freedom'. I did not realise your comment mentioned two different implications at first; sorry if that has caused any confusion.

by F3nd0 4y ago

I assume that implies you are not proponents of software freedom? The distinction may be important for some people, if only for placing trust in your long-term vision.

vince_at_iode 4y ago

I don't see well the point in this remark. Releasing free software has many consequences, and among them, one is to give freedom to people. Giving freedom to people is however the starting point of our story: we wanted to give the freedom to use a smartphone without, as much as possible, being spied on by tech giants. We accomplished (probably imperfectly, but honestly) that even with closed source software, for the people who put their trust in us. So no, our primary goal has never been to create a free software, just for the beauty of creating a free software: we're more interested in people freedom. Releasing the sources is just one step beyond, to increase trust in our work, and attract more people to a new way of considering their smartphone, whether it is directly with our rom or other roms that can now use our work. We even chose to license the heart of our developments with the AGPL, to guarantee that improvements made by others will be beneficial to everyone. That being said, as a developer who likes the code for itself, I like the idea to create a free software ;-)

capableweb 4y ago

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but how does open sourcing something imply they are not proponents of software freedom? For me, it would imply (or be rather explicit) that they are proponents of software freedom.

tokai 4y ago
Free software is all about user freedoms. Open source is about the source being open. It is two positions on access to software and code with different ideological foundations.
- capableweb 4y ago
  If the source was just published without any open source license, I'd call that "public code" or "code released", not specifically "open source" which comes with a different understanding than just the code being released under any specific open source license. So if the goal is user freedom, how would open source limit that? You have the right to modify the software and you have the right to re-distribute it, together or without your own changes. What "user freedom" is missing from this?
  - tokai 4y ago
    Why don't you look it up? Open Source was a reaction to the political implications of Free Software, that didn't float well with the private sector. The fault lines between the two are quite clear.
    - capableweb 4y ago
      Why don't you reply with your opinion instead? How fun would the HN comments be if we just refer people to other places, without actually referring to any specific things? You're not actually refuting anything I say, just give some vague "go look it up"...
F3nd0 4y ago
Open-sourcing something does not imply that¹ at all, since open-sourcing almost always equals to releasing as free software. It's the choice to talk about the source now being open, as opposed to the users now being free, that reflects a different points of focus in the wider community, and tends to reflect one's motivations and point of view as well. If you hold the firm belief that software users ought to be free, and that is your main motivation for releasing something as free software, you are likely to talk about it. If you give users freedom 'on accident' while opening up your source, whether it's because that's convenient for you, you think that's mutually beneficial, or you just choose whatever term seems the most popular since you don't have a belief of your own to base the choice on, it goes to show that users' freedom is not your primary concern. Now you might not necessarily think that's a bad thing, but if you do, it might be a good idea not to put your faith in an entity that doesn't share your concerns, and is only aligned with them on accident, for the moment. 1. EDIT: 'that' meaning 'not being proponents of software freedom'. I did not realise your comment mentioned two different implications at first; sorry if that has caused any confusion.