3 ms·

I'm glad Jeff pointed out the RMS article on Free software > For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social problem, and the solution is

I'm glad Jeff pointed out the RMS article on Free software > For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free software. > “Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software (or nearly so), does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this, it is essential to speak of “free software.” > We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters. What we advocate is not “open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed source.” To make this clear, we avoid using those terms. People in the FOSS world has been beating this drum since the very beginning. Free software was always an ideology. I get that that turns people off, just like projects wrapped up in religion and politics do, but it's the only way to ensure that stuff like this doesn't happen. I concede that the people who champion FOSS are not always the kindest people to be around, see the response from people about Guix when I mentioned it as an alternative to Nix. But when I was in Boston I was a card carrying member of the FSF. I went to a few libre planets, and I met some real nice people in real life who also cared about FOSS very deeply, so I know not everyone in the community is a jerk.

downrightmike 2y ago
"What we advocate is not “open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed source.” I have zero idea what this means and I've been on Debian since Woody
- runjake 2y ago
  The GNU philosophy believes Free Software[1] and Open Source are two different things[2]. 1. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html 2. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- crandycodes 2y ago
  It's possible that "Open Source" here is the OSI definition, which FSF has some objections to. If "Closed Source" just means "not Open Source as OSI defines it", then it is true that some non-OSI software is "free" software. Free software still requires source to be available and that you're allowed to modify and distribute it.
- CRConrad 2y ago
  They mean that what they advocate is “free software”, not “open source”; and that what they oppose is therefore “non-free software”, not “closed source”. Honestly, how could that be hard to understand from the context of the discussion here?
chefandy 2y ago
I think the FSF's take is philosophically solid, and I've gotten a ton of of their software and advocacy over the years, as most software developers surely have. However, developers and other technical people are nearly the only people for whom that's true. So much of the FOSS world blames marketing for the lack of non-technical users, routinely ignore, or even deride the prospect of prioritizing the most important factor non-technical users choosing software: usability. The people who do so dismiss interface and experience design as superfluous aesthetics. It might be true for people with a working mental model of software architecture in their back pocket, but to others, those little 'trivial' bits of prerequisite knowledge aggregate into a giant frustrating roadblock.

downrightmike 2y ago

"What we advocate is not “open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed source.” I have zero idea what this means and I've been on Debian since Woody

runjake 2y ago
The GNU philosophy believes Free Software[1] and Open Source are two different things[2]. 1. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html 2. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
crandycodes 2y ago
It's possible that "Open Source" here is the OSI definition, which FSF has some objections to. If "Closed Source" just means "not Open Source as OSI defines it", then it is true that some non-OSI software is "free" software. Free software still requires source to be available and that you're allowed to modify and distribute it.
CRConrad 2y ago
They mean that what they advocate is “free software”, not “open source”; and that what they oppose is therefore “non-free software”, not “closed source”. Honestly, how could that be hard to understand from the context of the discussion here?

chefandy 2y ago

I think the FSF's take is philosophically solid, and I've gotten a ton of of their software and advocacy over the years, as most software developers surely have. However, developers and other technical people are nearly the only people for whom that's true. So much of the FOSS world blames marketing for the lack of non-technical users, routinely ignore, or even deride the prospect of prioritizing the most important factor non-technical users choosing software: usability. The people who do so dismiss interface and experience design as superfluous aesthetics. It might be true for people with a working mental model of software architecture in their back pocket, but to others, those little 'trivial' bits of prerequisite knowledge aggregate into a giant frustrating roadblock.