3 ms·

Not sure why you are bring downvoted. Your argument is clear, and drives the discussion forward. I would agree that Free Software can (and is) used by everyone

Not sure why you are bring downvoted. Your argument is clear, and drives the discussion forward. I would agree that Free Software can (and is) used by everyone but only a very tiny fraction are able to exercise any of the Freedoms it advances. But that's OK. My mom doesn't know the difference between Windows and Linux, and the license distinctions are meaningless to her. But she could still get meaningful value choosing one over another. FOSS beats the drum, not to turn people into programmers, but rather so that some tiny fraction of the next generation understand the building blocks thst got us here, and carry the game forward. Personally I think there is a lot of ignorance and misunderstanding of both OSS and Free. Lots of people want something outside the scope of these, and rather than create some new category, try and morph one of these. Complaints like "give nothing back" or "AWS is eating our lunch" etc are all irrelevant to OSS and Free. They are topics which are not interesting to those licenses. I would say this; if an OSS or Free license does not suit your need, use another license. Or write your own. There's no problem with that. (For 25 years I've been shipping source, but without distribution rights- "source supplied", not "open source".) I freely use OSS and obviously the OSS parts keep their OSS license. 99% of my customers won't ever look at the source. That's fine. I found a license that works for me, and them.

kube-system 2y ago
I think end users can certainly benefit from the downstream effects that FOSS has on developers, integrators, and other technology professionals. But most FOSS advocacy ignores this in their messaging, their strategy, and in the spaces where they operate. I've only ever seen FOSS outreach to industry groups, academic groups, hobbyists, and other professional or professional-adjacent groups. They very well could make their case to the modern end user that their approach is better than closed source SaaS solutions, or other freeware. But they don't. It's a missed opportunity, and they're going to lose relevance and influence if they don't appeal to those who drive market demand for software products.
- bruce511 2y ago
  >> They very well could make their case to the modern end user that their approach is better than closed source SaaS solutions, or other freeware. Lots of people benefit from Free Software, yes. But asking the consumer to understand licensing and the implications thereof would be a fantastically ambitious and expensive project. Ultimately yes, FOSS outreach is targeted, because the first-order benefits are targeted. Outside the internet itself (where the message is there for anyone to find) only very narrow groups would get any value from a discussion on licenses. For example, say I make software for small-town bakers. My software might be open source, or closed source. My bakers couldn't care less. They care only about the first order benefits - does the planner work etc. Ironically "no-one" chooses Linux because of the license. They choose it because of the price. And consequently they dominate where "number of machines" is the key issue (aka servers). Consumers choose Windows or Android because of the first order benefits there. They are better than Linux Desktop or Linux on the phone. (And yes, I'm aware Android uses the Linux kernel, but Linux is not sufficient.) The whole "year of the Linux desktop" argument is for Joe public to care about License. 25 years in, and I think it's safe to assume that approach has failed. >> to industry groups, academic groups, hobbyists, and other professional or professional-adjacent groups. FOSS exists today precisely because these are yhe groups that matter. And they are, I think, the groups that will continue to matter.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    > For example, say I make software for small-town bakers. My software might be open source, or closed source. My bakers couldn't care less. They care only about the first order benefits - does the planner work etc. And in today's business landscape, the model that the baker and the software developer both like the best is permissive-FOSS licensing with proprietary extensions and SaaS delivery. Or, an entirely proprietary application that runs on top of FOSS server components. Which is not looking good for the future of FOSS in terms of contributions back to the community. In this way, it looks like FOSS is becoming less for users and more for venture capitalists and startup founders :)
    - bruce511 2y ago
      I feel like perhaps you are seeing a change in this? Obviously the baker doesn't care about the license- but certainly a SAAS approach has gained momentum. Whether this is because the baker wants it that way, or because its easier, and more profitable for providers that way, is debatable. Does FOSS offer less for end users than before? I'm not sure. The benefits of getting source code (reading, editing, compiling) has always demanded a skillset far removed from most users. Doing SAAS as FOSS just adds "hosting" to that list of skills. Yes, lots of startups advertise "Open Source" but that's just a marketing thing. They pivot the license when someone else starts getting commercial value from it. Folks contributing to VC projects know what they're getting. But there are lots of modern Open Source successes as well. Chromium has spawned a whole slew of browsers, Linux continues to grow (code wise), and most programming languages are now open. Writing Open Source has always been difficult from a commercial point of view, simply because its cheaper to commercialize work that didn't cost development $. But again, that's always been true. Red Hat didn't write Linux. Is the future for new Open Source projects rosy? I don't know. But folk have been predicting its demise since, well, it started.

kube-system 2y ago

I think end users can certainly benefit from the downstream effects that FOSS has on developers, integrators, and other technology professionals. But most FOSS advocacy ignores this in their messaging, their strategy, and in the spaces where they operate. I've only ever seen FOSS outreach to industry groups, academic groups, hobbyists, and other professional or professional-adjacent groups. They very well could make their case to the modern end user that their approach is better than closed source SaaS solutions, or other freeware. But they don't. It's a missed opportunity, and they're going to lose relevance and influence if they don't appeal to those who drive market demand for software products.

bruce511 2y ago
>> They very well could make their case to the modern end user that their approach is better than closed source SaaS solutions, or other freeware. Lots of people benefit from Free Software, yes. But asking the consumer to understand licensing and the implications thereof would be a fantastically ambitious and expensive project. Ultimately yes, FOSS outreach is targeted, because the first-order benefits are targeted. Outside the internet itself (where the message is there for anyone to find) only very narrow groups would get any value from a discussion on licenses. For example, say I make software for small-town bakers. My software might be open source, or closed source. My bakers couldn't care less. They care only about the first order benefits - does the planner work etc. Ironically "no-one" chooses Linux because of the license. They choose it because of the price. And consequently they dominate where "number of machines" is the key issue (aka servers). Consumers choose Windows or Android because of the first order benefits there. They are better than Linux Desktop or Linux on the phone. (And yes, I'm aware Android uses the Linux kernel, but Linux is not sufficient.) The whole "year of the Linux desktop" argument is for Joe public to care about License. 25 years in, and I think it's safe to assume that approach has failed. >> to industry groups, academic groups, hobbyists, and other professional or professional-adjacent groups. FOSS exists today precisely because these are yhe groups that matter. And they are, I think, the groups that will continue to matter.
- kube-system 2y ago
  > For example, say I make software for small-town bakers. My software might be open source, or closed source. My bakers couldn't care less. They care only about the first order benefits - does the planner work etc. And in today's business landscape, the model that the baker and the software developer both like the best is permissive-FOSS licensing with proprietary extensions and SaaS delivery. Or, an entirely proprietary application that runs on top of FOSS server components. Which is not looking good for the future of FOSS in terms of contributions back to the community. In this way, it looks like FOSS is becoming less for users and more for venture capitalists and startup founders :)
  - bruce511 2y ago
    I feel like perhaps you are seeing a change in this? Obviously the baker doesn't care about the license- but certainly a SAAS approach has gained momentum. Whether this is because the baker wants it that way, or because its easier, and more profitable for providers that way, is debatable. Does FOSS offer less for end users than before? I'm not sure. The benefits of getting source code (reading, editing, compiling) has always demanded a skillset far removed from most users. Doing SAAS as FOSS just adds "hosting" to that list of skills. Yes, lots of startups advertise "Open Source" but that's just a marketing thing. They pivot the license when someone else starts getting commercial value from it. Folks contributing to VC projects know what they're getting. But there are lots of modern Open Source successes as well. Chromium has spawned a whole slew of browsers, Linux continues to grow (code wise), and most programming languages are now open. Writing Open Source has always been difficult from a commercial point of view, simply because its cheaper to commercialize work that didn't cost development $. But again, that's always been true. Red Hat didn't write Linux. Is the future for new Open Source projects rosy? I don't know. But folk have been predicting its demise since, well, it started.