4 ms·

Maybe i'm mistaken but i believe there's some serious misreading of the original text (of ddvault). I'm pretty sure ddvault knows about the distinction between

Maybe i'm mistaken but i believe there's some serious misreading of the original text (of ddvault). I'm pretty sure ddvault knows about the distinction between open source and free/libre and i'm also pretty sure he's definitely on the free/libre part. Politically it's pretty clear the distinction between the two is the same one as between liberals and the left. And his blog regularly features words definitely hinting at more or less leftist and anticapitalists concepts (eg "union" in https://drewdevault.com/2021/09/27/Let-distros-do-their-job.html https://drewdevault.com/2021/09/27/Let-distros-do-their-job....). So for me this "rebutal" is a misreading insofar that it is treated as an attack on free/libre coming from the oss world, whereas i definitely view it as a call for reflectivity and strategical reevaluation coming from within free/libre. Or maybe it wasn't and i'm seeing in it what i want to see: i definitely consider myself on the political side of free software as some sort of communism applied to technology and science, but i also find the fsf very dusty and dogmatic. Looks very much like nowadays's communist parties: a long time since these weren't on the forefront of these revolutionary ideas.

m000 3y ago
I don't think there's a misreading. McLuhan argues that there is value for FOSS in FSF remaining independent and "radical". FS & OSS being in sorts of a (shotgun?) marriage, does not mean that they need a shared Facebook profile.
- lapinot 3y ago
  > McLuhan argues that there is value for FOSS in FSF remaining independent and "radical". I didn't say the opposite. My point is that the FSF shouldn't be so sure they are the most radical out there. People more radical than them also criticize them. It's easy dismissing critics by saying they come from people with somehow "compromised" opinions, but it doesn't address any of the critics.

m000 3y ago

I don't think there's a misreading. McLuhan argues that there is value for FOSS in FSF remaining independent and "radical". FS & OSS being in sorts of a (shotgun?) marriage, does not mean that they need a shared Facebook profile.

lapinot 3y ago
> McLuhan argues that there is value for FOSS in FSF remaining independent and "radical". I didn't say the opposite. My point is that the FSF shouldn't be so sure they are the most radical out there. People more radical than them also criticize them. It's easy dismissing critics by saying they come from people with somehow "compromised" opinions, but it doesn't address any of the critics.