4 ms·
> The entire point of FOSS is for a few experts to do all that work once and then we all can share and modify the output of those years of work and millions of
by seba_dos1 2y ago
> The entire point of FOSS is for a few experts to do all that work once and then we all can share and modify the output of those years of work and millions of dollars invested as we see fit, without having to waste all that time and money doing it over again.
The entire point of FOSS is to preserve user freedom. Avoiding pointless waste of repeated work is a side effect of applying that freedom.
It would feel entirely on point for things that require ungodly amounts of money and resources to even start considering exercising your freedoms on to not be considered FOSS, even if that aspect isn't considered by currently accepted definitions.
- lolinder 2y agoNit: what you're describing is Free Software as put forward by the FSF, not Open Source as put forward by the OSI. I realize I'm the one who used the combo acronym first, but this is a discussion about the OSI, which exists to champion the cynical company-centric version of the movement, and for that version my description is accurate.
- pxc 2y agoIt is sad that this definition will represent the first practical split between these two movements in terms of their terminology, if it goes through. The difference between open-source and free software will go from a difference of emphasis to a difference in substance. I suppose I will have to stop writing 'F/OSS'. I'll probably use the term 'open-source' less and less, and maybe stop altogether.