On 11/17/2017 02:39 PM, Carsten Agger wrote: > > 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. [...] > 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. > Admittedly, there's a lot of lack of ambiguity or clarity here.
Check out this very beatiful folder from one of our clients, the municipality of Aarhus (in Danish): https://www.aakb.dk/sites/www.aakb.dk/files/files/page/hvad_er_opensource.pdf It has a section called "What is Open Source" - and goes on to describe the four freedoms. And they use the bicycle analogy - "open source" is a bicycle you're allowed to fix. Which is really the values of free software. Best Carsten _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
