5 ms·

As I see it open source killed free software. We don't need open source, we need free software. Stallman was right, as he always is with these things. It's a m

by kaoD 4y ago

As I see it open source killed free software. We don't need open source, we need free software. Stallman was right, as he always is with these things. It's a meaningful distinction and the fact that open source mindshare won is what effectively killed any momentum that free software had. Software freedom completely disappeared from the public discourse and it was not fortuitous.

Gigachad 4y ago
Open source (OSI definition) is exactly the same thing as Free Software (FSF definition) so your comment makes no sense without clarifying further. Are you perhaps referring to Source Available software vs OS/FS? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
- kaoD 4y ago
  That's a great comment to prove my point on how software freedom is completely absent from public discourse :) I'll let Stallman speak for me: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    Stallman made up his own definition of open source which is different than the common definition. The OSI best sums it up here https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd their definition is essentially the same as the FSF essential freedoms. Without classifying "Stallman's definition of Open Source" people will assume something much like the OSI one. What Stallman calls Open Source is what the rest of the world calls Source Available. Stallman shows his lack of communication skills again here by endlessly fighting to redefine words for no purpose.
    - kaoD 4y ago
      > What Stallman calls Open Source is what the rest of the world calls Source Available That's absolutely wrong, as clearly explained in the article I linked to.
      - jujube3 4y ago
        Stallman appears to be considering "source available" licenses which forbid modification (and sometimes deployment) as "open source." This is not the definition of open source that everyone else uses. Certainly the OSI would not agree. There is more information here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd RMS was around in the 1980s when "open source" was still being defined. So maybe he thinks he can define it however he likes. But to the rest of us it doesn't make sense, like saying "software that has a free software license, like GNU Emacs and Microsoft Word." One of those two doesn't belong in that sentence, and saying that I'm using my own custom definition of "free software" is a pretty shitty way to argue.
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  The problem is in messaging. The whole point of the OSI was that the FSF was too ideological to be appealing to most businesses. The problem, is that the ideological angle is the point. The OSI would have never pitched the GPL, and the FSF would have never pitched the MIT license. When you release software under a license that makes approximately zero demands of the other party, the other party won't respect your software. When you release software under a license that makes even low effort demands of the user, like reciprocation, they will.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    The MIT license is a FSF certified "Free Software" license, it provides all of the "Essential Freedoms". The MIT is not "copyleft" like GPL is but copyleft is not the same thing as free software.
    - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
      Once again, that's not the point. The ideology required to promote copyleft licenses at all is the point. The OSI's standpoint is that you can distribute software that provides the user with their freedom. The FSF's standpoint is that you are ethically obligated to.
neilv 4y ago
Please consider not calling it "free software". I've tried to explain to RMS that it's terrible communication, but I think he likes the wordplay. The term "free" product already meant something to people, and continues to mean that. There is generally no opportunity to (as RMS might imagine) say "I'm glad you asked about the name. We mean free as in freedom. Let me assemble my lecture podium and explain..." Instead, people who hear the term have been hearing the opposite of the intent. Which leads us back ot the current problem, of people thinking it's all random hookups with open source, rather than meaningful relationships.
- kaoD 4y ago
  I don't think it's a naming problem, I think libre software has been under direct attack on a similar angle to "embrace, extend and extinguish". But yeah I agree naming doesn't help. I'm biased because in my language libre and gratis are distinct. I'll keep that in mind, even though I'm a bit pessimistic and don't think it will help, I guess it won't hurt either.
  - neilv 4y ago
    Agreed that naming isn't the only problem. It's a complex environment of different understandings and goals, including adversarial dynamics (and sometimes very underhanded behavior, including EEE). I think the foot-dragging by some on the name, after it's been pointed out to them, is kinda symptomatic of their difficulty operating in this environment. And they often end up discrediting action that could be viable, but needs to win buy-in from others.
- PhasmaFelis 4y ago
  Stallman is an odd character. He's deeply passionate about the FOSS movement, and its success means more to him than anything except his jargon choices. He'd rather see the whole thing burn than change the words he demands it be described with.
  - dTal 4y ago
    That's a bit unfair. He passionately advocates for his choice of language because he thinks it's important to the future of free software. You might disagree with him, but he's not exactly shy about justifying his opinions.
jchw 4y ago
Software freedom didn't really disappear from public discourse, it never appeared in the first place, unless you count amongst a bunch of nerds nobody in the real world cares about or listens to. It may sound harsh, but that's reality. Open source appeared in the public discourse because it had tangible benefits and people could understand what it meant. I don't think open source killed the concept of software freedom, I think the concept of software freedom as a concept literally never caught on to begin with. Honestly, I'm a bit tired of the Stallman worship at this point. A lot of people were pessimistic about the future of software and the internet, and they're not all prophets. He observed what was happening when other people chose to naively ignore it and hope for the best, and that's not nothing, but frankly, if he was so smart, then you'd think he'd have a solution. Nonetheless, it seems like everything Stallman actually proposes is impractical and out-of-touch with the current state-of-affairs, which makes me wonder what we're supposed to do other than marvel at the fact that someone was able to reason that this would become an issue some day.
BuckyBeaver 4y ago
Why?
- BuckyBeaver 4y ago
  Yes, down-mod instead of answer. Go back to Reddit.
kelnos 4y ago
In this case I don't think it would really matter. An MIT-licensed driver/app to run this scanner would be perfectly acceptable and useful to the community. Copyleft just ensures that other parties can't take someone's open-source work and close it up and profit off of it. I don't think copyleft is really necessary for when a corporation open-sources some software essential to the use of one of their products.

by kaoD 4y ago

Gigachad 4y ago

Open source (OSI definition) is exactly the same thing as Free Software (FSF definition) so your comment makes no sense without clarifying further. Are you perhaps referring to Source Available software vs OS/FS? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

kaoD 4y ago
That's a great comment to prove my point on how software freedom is completely absent from public discourse :) I'll let Stallman speak for me: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Stallman made up his own definition of open source which is different than the common definition. The OSI best sums it up here https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd their definition is essentially the same as the FSF essential freedoms. Without classifying "Stallman's definition of Open Source" people will assume something much like the OSI one. What Stallman calls Open Source is what the rest of the world calls Source Available. Stallman shows his lack of communication skills again here by endlessly fighting to redefine words for no purpose.
  - kaoD 4y ago
    > What Stallman calls Open Source is what the rest of the world calls Source Available That's absolutely wrong, as clearly explained in the article I linked to.
    - jujube3 4y ago
      Stallman appears to be considering "source available" licenses which forbid modification (and sometimes deployment) as "open source." This is not the definition of open source that everyone else uses. Certainly the OSI would not agree. There is more information here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd RMS was around in the 1980s when "open source" was still being defined. So maybe he thinks he can define it however he likes. But to the rest of us it doesn't make sense, like saying "software that has a free software license, like GNU Emacs and Microsoft Word." One of those two doesn't belong in that sentence, and saying that I'm using my own custom definition of "free software" is a pretty shitty way to argue.
OkayPhysicist 4y ago
The problem is in messaging. The whole point of the OSI was that the FSF was too ideological to be appealing to most businesses. The problem, is that the ideological angle is the point. The OSI would have never pitched the GPL, and the FSF would have never pitched the MIT license. When you release software under a license that makes approximately zero demands of the other party, the other party won't respect your software. When you release software under a license that makes even low effort demands of the user, like reciprocation, they will.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  The MIT license is a FSF certified "Free Software" license, it provides all of the "Essential Freedoms". The MIT is not "copyleft" like GPL is but copyleft is not the same thing as free software.
  - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    Once again, that's not the point. The ideology required to promote copyleft licenses at all is the point. The OSI's standpoint is that you can distribute software that provides the user with their freedom. The FSF's standpoint is that you are ethically obligated to.

neilv 4y ago

Please consider not calling it "free software". I've tried to explain to RMS that it's terrible communication, but I think he likes the wordplay. The term "free" product already meant something to people, and continues to mean that. There is generally no opportunity to (as RMS might imagine) say "I'm glad you asked about the name. We mean free as in freedom. Let me assemble my lecture podium and explain..." Instead, people who hear the term have been hearing the opposite of the intent. Which leads us back ot the current problem, of people thinking it's all random hookups with open source, rather than meaningful relationships.

kaoD 4y ago
I don't think it's a naming problem, I think libre software has been under direct attack on a similar angle to "embrace, extend and extinguish". But yeah I agree naming doesn't help. I'm biased because in my language libre and gratis are distinct. I'll keep that in mind, even though I'm a bit pessimistic and don't think it will help, I guess it won't hurt either.
- neilv 4y ago
  Agreed that naming isn't the only problem. It's a complex environment of different understandings and goals, including adversarial dynamics (and sometimes very underhanded behavior, including EEE). I think the foot-dragging by some on the name, after it's been pointed out to them, is kinda symptomatic of their difficulty operating in this environment. And they often end up discrediting action that could be viable, but needs to win buy-in from others.
PhasmaFelis 4y ago
Stallman is an odd character. He's deeply passionate about the FOSS movement, and its success means more to him than anything except his jargon choices. He'd rather see the whole thing burn than change the words he demands it be described with.
- dTal 4y ago
  That's a bit unfair. He passionately advocates for his choice of language because he thinks it's important to the future of free software. You might disagree with him, but he's not exactly shy about justifying his opinions.

jchw 4y ago

Software freedom didn't really disappear from public discourse, it never appeared in the first place, unless you count amongst a bunch of nerds nobody in the real world cares about or listens to. It may sound harsh, but that's reality. Open source appeared in the public discourse because it had tangible benefits and people could understand what it meant. I don't think open source killed the concept of software freedom, I think the concept of software freedom as a concept literally never caught on to begin with. Honestly, I'm a bit tired of the Stallman worship at this point. A lot of people were pessimistic about the future of software and the internet, and they're not all prophets. He observed what was happening when other people chose to naively ignore it and hope for the best, and that's not nothing, but frankly, if he was so smart, then you'd think he'd have a solution. Nonetheless, it seems like everything Stallman actually proposes is impractical and out-of-touch with the current state-of-affairs, which makes me wonder what we're supposed to do other than marvel at the fact that someone was able to reason that this would become an issue some day.

BuckyBeaver 4y ago

Why?

BuckyBeaver 4y ago
Yes, down-mod instead of answer. Go back to Reddit.

kelnos 4y ago

In this case I don't think it would really matter. An MIT-licensed driver/app to run this scanner would be perfectly acceptable and useful to the community. Copyleft just ensures that other parties can't take someone's open-source work and close it up and profit off of it. I don't think copyleft is really necessary for when a corporation open-sources some software essential to the use of one of their products.