# Jonas Oberg [2017-11-18 07:13 +0100]:
It just does not work. We must look beyond the words people use and
encourage people to think about the philosophy of our movement,
as the ethical foundations on which the development model depends,
and vice versa. And we must do that regardless of what terminology
people use.
Couldn't have said it better, thank you.
Why can't we enjoy and advocate for the many benefits "FLOSS" gives us,
from practical to ethical, without creating artificial barriers? While I
personally prefer Free Software, I am fine with using Open Source when I
have the feeling that my dialogue partners will more likely get my point
(e.g. political actors who I need to convince in 5 sentences without
confusing them). Our shared objectives are what matter.
Sometimes I believe hard-liner evangelists of one terminology feel
superior to the other because they feel they understand what it is all
about (and often announce it loud and widely). But we shouldn't
underestimate people (also) using other terms, they probably have very
good reasons to do so.
Best,
Max
--
Max Mehl - Program Manager - Free Software Foundation Europe
Contact and further information: https://fsfe.org/about/mehl
Private weblog: <blog.mehl.mx> | Private homepage: <mehl.mx>
Support advocacy for Free Software: https://fsfe.org/donate
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
