3 ms·

Yup, this article hits it straight on the head. Both Free Software and Open Source (the later is just a more corporate-friendly version of the former) are funda

Yup, this article hits it straight on the head. Both Free Software and Open Source (the later is just a more corporate-friendly version of the former) are fundamentally 80s ideologies, concerned about software you run on your computer and the whole thing was created because Stallman couldn't fix his Xerox printer. 40 years later, many things have happened - the Internet, widespread usage of embedded devices and SaaS - and the movements just.... didn't adapt to them at all. The whole culture is so enmired in the original definitions that it simply can't see anything outside it - so everyone just drains from the creative commons but doesn't really expand it. There's a reason why most prominent FOSS applications are old pieces of software. It's just not a model which works in the 2020s, except for software libraries. Ironically, many Free Software projects are almost indistinguishable from "look but no touch" software - while in theory you can make changes, in practice you can't because contributing to it is next to impossible and the project structure basically spells the definition of NIMBYism out. There's also a fundamental tension here - anyone who argues that the current tradeoffs of open source/free software just aren't good enough almost instantly gets dismissed with "well well well.... if you don't like it, don't use it/pick a proprietary licence lol". Or they go straight to victim blaming with "you should have known what you got yourself into, no takebacksies~"... There's a strange dynamic here where if you want to earn money from your project, then FOSS is not a business model, but if a megacorp wants to earn money from your project, then it's okay because everyone wins and you don't lose anyway. Or something like that. The Free Software movement rejected all ideas which could have contributed to a solution to the ecosystem thriving - non-commercial licences, usage-based licences, dual-licences (in the sense of different terms applying to different users) and countless other things in favour of strict textual interpretation of founding principles. Religions didn't survive thousands of years only on textualism so Free Software won't survive this way, either.

zahlman 2y ago
>Ironically, many Free Software projects are almost indistinguishable from "look but no touch" software - while in theory you can make changes, in practice you can't because contributing to it is next to impossible and the project structure basically spells the definition of NIMBYism out. These projects still allow you to make those changes locally - and that's the entire point. FOSS has never guaranteed that your changes would be incorporated by anyone else, distributed by anyone else, or recognized as legitimate or valuable by anyone else. We're just vastly more conscious of that in the 2020s, in our era of internet celebrities. >There's a strange dynamic here where if you want to earn money from your project, then FOSS is not a business model, but if a megacorp wants to earn money from your project, then it's okay because everyone wins and you don't lose anyway. Or something like that. You're perfectly permitted to charge for the software, just as the megacorp is. The fact that people are willing to pay the megacorp for it and not you is unrelated to FOSS philosophy. >The Free Software movement rejected all ideas which could have contributed to a solution to the ecosystem thriving - non-commercial licences, usage-based licences, dual-licences (in the sense of different terms applying to different users) and countless other things in favour of strict textual interpretation of founding principles There is actual philosophy behind these principles, not just literal dogma. For example, applying different terms to different users requires them to agree to a different license because that's kinda just how law works, and you can't withhold the option of the OSI-approved licenses from anyone because non-discrimination is part of the philosophy.

zahlman 2y ago

>Ironically, many Free Software projects are almost indistinguishable from "look but no touch" software - while in theory you can make changes, in practice you can't because contributing to it is next to impossible and the project structure basically spells the definition of NIMBYism out. These projects still allow you to make those changes locally - and that's the entire point. FOSS has never guaranteed that your changes would be incorporated by anyone else, distributed by anyone else, or recognized as legitimate or valuable by anyone else. We're just vastly more conscious of that in the 2020s, in our era of internet celebrities. >There's a strange dynamic here where if you want to earn money from your project, then FOSS is not a business model, but if a megacorp wants to earn money from your project, then it's okay because everyone wins and you don't lose anyway. Or something like that. You're perfectly permitted to charge for the software, just as the megacorp is. The fact that people are willing to pay the megacorp for it and not you is unrelated to FOSS philosophy. >The Free Software movement rejected all ideas which could have contributed to a solution to the ecosystem thriving - non-commercial licences, usage-based licences, dual-licences (in the sense of different terms applying to different users) and countless other things in favour of strict textual interpretation of founding principles There is actual philosophy behind these principles, not just literal dogma. For example, applying different terms to different users requires them to agree to a different license because that's kinda just how law works, and you can't withhold the option of the OSI-approved licenses from anyone because non-discrimination is part of the philosophy.