I couldn't have said better. I fully agree with you on these points. Thank you very much! ;)
hellekin <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Carsten, I think precisely the opposite, that words convey values, > and the values in turn shape the meaning of words. Now we have a > different situation from 1998, and from 2013 even, where I posted > [some criticism of esr's famous open-source > post](https://ps.zoethical.com/t/good-bye-open-source-hello-free-software/344). > > (The rest is more destined to the other readers on the list, since we > had most of this discussion already recently.) > > Bruce Perens, whom we cannot blame for not knowing what he talks about > concerning both Open Source and Free Software, recently wrote the > following [On Usage of the Phrase Open > Source](https://perens.com/2017/09/26/on-usage-of-the-phrase-open-source/): > >> "For a work to be Open Source, it must be entirely under a license > or licenses which comply with the Open Source Definition." > > And: > >> "When “Open Source” is used as a descriptive term rather than a > proper name, it becomes a fuzzy reference to a development paradigm > with no concrete definition, rather than the specific set of > license rules in the Open Source Definition. So, it can be made to > mean just about anything. Don’t allow people to erode the > definition of Open Source." > > He concludes with: > >> It is unfortunate that for some time the Open Source Initiative > deprecated Richard Stallman and Free Software, and that some people > still consider Open Source and Free Software to be different things > today. I never meant it to be that way. Open Source was meant to be > a way of promoting the concept of Free Software to business people, > who I have always hoped would thus come to appreciate Richard and > his Free Software campaign. And many have. Open Source licenses and > Free Software licenses are effectively the same thing. > > Yet there are two things happening here -- as much as I respect Bruce, > I tend to disagree with him on political perspectives (he's a Merkan, > I'm a Yurpin, after all.) First, many respondents maintain that Open > Source is different from "the specific set of license rules in the > Open Source Definition", making it "a movement" or "an ideology", > discontinued from [the OSD](https://opensource.org/osd). The second > thing happening is of an order of magnitude more important to the > current discussion: the milieu changed quite drastically... > > ----- > > ### The license must not discriminate against any person or group of > persons. > > But that does not tell anything about how some Open Source software > may discriminate against certain persons of groups of persons. > > ----- > > In 2017, the arch-enemy of software freedom has turned an "Open Source > company". This is quite significant, don't you think, that a company > that spent so much energy denying software freedom and hating Open > Source with a passion suddenly flips around and embrace Open > Source. Not only embrace it, but quickly become "number one > contributor to Open Source" (in number of developers) according to > [Github statistics](https://octoverse.github.com/). Guess what they > contribute to? Their own environment, which has barely any overlaps > with the rest of the free world. Who's going to use it? Not Free > Software developers, or only marginally. Definitely M$ understood the > meaning of Open Source, as they created its own subset, with only the > handful of languages interesting to them, and only the subset of 2 > licenses they prefer: "MIT" (Expat license) and "Apache 2.0". > > A quick look at figures show that the GAFAM provide most contributions > to Open Source software -- I repeat: big proprietary software > companies, who also produce Open Source software, are actually the > biggest contributors of OSS. Of course they are, since without them > the vast majority of Free Software developers would have remained > hobbyists at best, and starving hackers at worst; the gain is > obvious. You can see Nadia Eghbert's latest presentations about > funding Open Source: she clearly mentions the lack of financial > support: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS6IpvTWwkQ > >> ### We don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. [The > enemy is proprietary > > software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html). > > If you, on this list, still consider that Open Source and Free > Software are the same, that it's only a question of label, and not a > political question, and not a philosophical question, then you've > fallen to an economic ideology propelled by finely crafted propaganda > -- sorry, > [meme-engineering](https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler). > > Forging words with definitive meaning, putting them into solid > relations, and not questioning their meaning when the relations change > is exactly why M$ can come into your playground and hit the ball > without anyone yelling back at them to GTFO. PR has you at your most > vulnerable point: you never wanted this antagonism in the first place, > you just wanted to code, so your emotional response is welcoming. You > also need to look beyond the smoke screen of "the victory of Open > Source": meanwhile, the same companies continue practicing the same > tactics with the same results, except now nobody's looking at them > frowning, because now, they're 'Open Source', they're "with us". > > Capitalism has long been the master process to turn dissidence into > sameness. When a RedHat lawyer needs a more neutral term, why does it > need it anyway? Has Open Source become too compromised to satisfy the > legal types? I don't think so. Has the world changed rapidly and, > since 2008, realized there was a large conspiracy of (mostly U.S.) > banksters and capitalism would never trickle down? Here in Europe, the > commons have clearly evolved from marginal to mainstream, and to > clearly anti-capitalists. But the discourse I hear from FSFE seems to > be leaning another way, towards some very trendy 'apolitical stance' > in sync with the Silicon Valley, and more generally coming from a > comfortable privileged class of European (predominantly) white male > software engineers. It's easy to claim to be apolitical when you have > large disposable income and sit on top of the pyramid. I find it > extremely uncomfortable to read many uncritical messages in this > thread. > > Whether you like it or not we all live in a world where the enemies of > freedom keep acting against freedom, spending millions at a time > shaping a new reality in which you are not a threat. Mozilla ceased to > be a threat, and the Linux kernel has not ever been one (Linux > Torvalds managed to drive his Ferrari, and the GRSecurity patches > became unavailable to the public), RedHat is creating its own software > environment by cutting off the common space between the GNU/Linux and > *BSD worlds, only on a smaller scale than M$ does so, following > Apple. Google, Apple, Amazon, all have their own hardware so they can > ensure a perfect fit for their (proprietary) software, and where you > won't be able to remove the battery. > > So yes, the 2% discussion is useless, unless it makes people realize > that what was true in 1998 still holds: either you talk about freedom, > or you look away, leaving proprietary software companies create Open > Source software and move further away from Free Software. Or, we can > think about what makes Free Software a natural choice to create a > public digital infrastructure, that clearly shows how to distinguish > between software that benefits subsidiarity and amplify human agency > and action, from software that benefits oligopolies, power, and > disable human action. Then what it is called won't matter, because > everyone will know what the code stands for. > > == > hk _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
