On 11/17/2017 01:54 PM, Paul Boddie wrote:
> Open source is not right wing, and free software is not left wing. > Nobody is saying that the software is one thing or the other. But I would > argue that people with a neoliberal perspective are unlikely to talk about > "Free Software": they will instead talk about "open source" because, as > others > have said, it focuses on the properties of the product instead of any ethical > motivations for giving the product those properties. And such ethical > motivations do not sit well with exploitative corporate practices that deny > users control over the software. > I mostly agree with this and with Stallman's position on the words. As someone who works for a self-described "open source" company, I'd describe "open source" as a development methodology and a business model. The development model is the well-known way of working in communities, with open projects and voluntary contributions with or without corporate support which have given us so many projects - Linux, Plone, Python, LibreOffice, really many more than I can mention. The business model is about clients being able to share implementations and not paying for the same work several times over. If client A want a system, we can build if for them for $A €. If client B wants the same system, they can get it for the price of delivery + the price of their own customizations, for $B €, with (normally) $B << $A. And if A wants B's customizations, they can get it with the next upgrade, which is likely a part of their service agreement. So the business model is basically that of being more attractive to customers because they can share the costs and avoid lock-in, because they have a right to the code. Anyway, that's the business model that Magenta works with. Most of our "open source" products are *not* made as community projects. This is not because of a lack of will, it's just that a) clients don't pay for community building and b) most people don't notice our repositories enough to send patches. "Free software" is a political agenda to empower users. So, to explain what "open source" is and why it's good, you need to explain why a methodology works well, and why the business model is attractive for clients. To explain what "free software" is, you need to explain a political agenda that's all about empowering users. Some people find it embarassing to have to explain a leftist- or libertarian-sounding political agenda in a business meeting. But they shouldn't: The political agenda is really why it's so important. If it was only a question of getting better software, as Stallman argues, we might as well get ourselves a Mac already. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
