4 ms·
To me this is a better affirmation of "The Free Software Foundation is dying" than a rebuttal. Focused on the distinctions between FS and OS, building an antag
by jmull 4y ago
To me this is a better affirmation of "The Free Software Foundation is dying" than a rebuttal.
Focused on the distinctions between FS and OS, building an antagonistic narrative between them, doubling-down on purity.
I would agree "dying" is too strong a word, though, since there's no reason the FSF can't continue to exist indefinitely, as a kind of club of like-minded enthusiasts. But the direction they are going now, their activities will be ever more insular, having less and less affect on anyone but themselves.
Their stated mission is "to promote computer user freedom. We defend the rights of all software users." If you aren't having an effect outside your own group it's hard to see how that can be fulfilled.
(Not that I'm sad to see it end up this way. I've always understood how developer hostile it is.)
- dale_glass 4y agoI think an adherence to purity makes a lot of sense for the FSF, but they could still keep it while compromising a bit on the very edges of it without changing anything fundamental. Eg, they refuse to use Youtube. Using it would involve a tiny bit of nose holding on their part, but they could still use it to spread their message.
- hammyhavoc 4y agoHas it ever been anything more than insular like-minded people though, or was it all illusory?
- Brian_K_White 4y agoThis is like saying they are stupid for not just using Microsoft/Google/etc services like everyone else if they want to reach people where they are. This is a dumb take. If you don't understand principles or integrity, that is not a failing of others that do.