Post AXMpEC2wRZIwQELCt6 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
(DIR) More posts by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
(DIR) Post #AXJh1dZzNoacwTQ9dg by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-07-03T12:03:39Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
"Copyleft was considered a cancer. But a cancer to what? To the capitalist consumerism killing the planet? Then I will proudly side with the cancer."@ploum https://ploum.net/2023-06-19-more-rms.htmlThis!#CopyLeft #capitalism #consumerism
(DIR) Post #AXJkpuPXNVPPUAC9dg by jrballesteros05@social.linux.pizza
2023-07-03T12:46:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @ploum I guess the ambiguity in the English "free" term was a RMS's failure. I don't know if the use of "libre" would have changed things but it would solve many of the confusions. I support the copyleft mainly because I don't trust big techs. They are stealing the knowledge in our faces and people just clap them. I'm not sure if copyleft would have changed things because those companies just make a fork to the original project but at least the code must be libre too.
(DIR) Post #AXJxqHZmY6l2jeUm9Y by melroy@mastodon.melroy.org
2023-07-03T15:12:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @ploum I'm missing Richard talks. I hope he will return again on podium 🙏
(DIR) Post #AXKg4iWxWewcN1rtTM by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-07-03T23:27:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jrballesteros05> I guess the ambiguity in the English "free" term was a RMS's failureMore a failing of English as a language. There's no ambiguity in most other European languages ("libre" vs. "gratis" etc). But I often wonder if the Open Source pivot would have seemed necessary if he'd just gone with "Freedom Software", or even just called the organisation the Software Freedom Foundation. I'd still like to see the Free Software Directory rebranded as the Software Freedom Directory.@ploum
(DIR) Post #AXKg9GDCF2hBzOn5ou by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-07-03T23:28:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jrballesteros05 I often use the phrase "Free Code" or "Free Code software" to get across that it's the *code* that's free (as in speech *and* beer). Even if there are charges for using the software.@ploum
(DIR) Post #AXKhEdjYJbTgLL3PfM by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-07-03T23:40:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
"Stefano [Maffulli, OSI Executive Director] concluded by saying we should start with 'a return to the basics,' the GNU Manifesto, which predates most licenses and sets the "North Star" for the open source movement. Maffulli suggested that its principles remain surprisingly relevant when applied to AI systems. By focusing on first principles, we'll be better able to navigate this complex intersection of AI and open source."#StevenJVaughanNicholshttps://www.theregister.com/2023/06/23/open_source_licenses_ai/#SoftwareFreedom #GNU
(DIR) Post #AXKhewnA50TayqHpEO by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-07-03T23:45:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
"It is a mistake to associate GNU with the term 'open source'—that term was coined in 1998 by people who disagree with the Free Software Movement's ethical values. They use it to promote an amoral approach to the same field."https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.en.htmlI suggest modifying or removing this statement from the prelude to the canonical version of the GNU Manifesto. It reads as petty and sectarian, and I don't think it's even true.
(DIR) Post #AXKhj48ai88Ov9H2XI by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-07-03T23:45:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
"It is a mistake to associate GNU with the term 'open source'—that term was coined in 1998 by people who disagree with the Free Software Movement's ethical values. They use it to promote an amoral approach to the same field."https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.en.htmlI suggest modifying or removing this statement from the prelude to the canonical version of the GNU Manifesto. It reads as petty and sectarian, and I don't think it's even true.
(DIR) Post #AXKiw0wC1GNoiODFsO by Oozenet@mastodon.social
2023-07-03T23:59:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey It is true. In the 90s Raymond and others started the open source thing to differentiate being able to see the source and to make it sound more business friendly because they thought the libre bit didn't come across in English and businesses were spooked by the prospect of giving their code away for free. The GNU people hated this because fuck business friendly.1/2
(DIR) Post #AXKpldmlwU3Dh4o6Bk by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-07-04T01:15:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Maybe time to revisit this idea when lobbying for tech policy reform?"Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the price as a software tax. The government gives this to an agency like the NSF to spend on software development."#RMS, 1985https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.en.htmlThe manifesto goes into some detail on how this could work. Including tax credits for those who have already donated to software development.#TechPolicy
(DIR) Post #AXLBAEk8Hjr8Ip8rb6 by jrballesteros05@social.linux.pizza
2023-07-04T05:15:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @ploum Maybe I did not explain myself properly. I meant RMS or the FSF wasted too long trying to explain the "free beer" vs "freedom" stuff. Even with open source, I heard things like "This software is open source so it's gratis". Many people associate "floss" with gratis. In my opinion that's a failure about sending a message. Of course I still believe "free software" is the way, I philosophically like more.
(DIR) Post #AXLD63MEsDvPk26BG4 by lightweight@social.fossdle.org
2023-07-04T05:37:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey yup. Totally correct. @ploum
(DIR) Post #AXLI39Koh61RBHrtSK by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-07-04T06:33:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
You're teaching Grandma to suck eggs here @Oozenet. I've read a *lot* about this history over the 20+ years I've been involved in this stuff. The OSI founders include people like Raymond and Bruce Perens who remain - to this day - some of the staunchest defenders of software freedom. They clearly saw "Open Source" as a PR strategy for promoting software freedom. The description of their motives in the prelude to the GNU Manifesto is untrue, and unfair.(1/2)
(DIR) Post #AXLICg00cNXX5tg7Zg by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-07-04T06:34:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Oozenet Here's Christine Peterson, who coined the term "Open Source software":https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software"At these meetings, we discussed the need for a new term due to the confusion factor. The argument was as follows: those new to the term 'free software' assume it is referring to the price. Oldtimers must then launch into an explanation, usually given as follows: 'We mean free as in freedom, not free as in beer'."(2/3)
(DIR) Post #AXLIGV5t6a40QlFf8q by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-07-04T06:35:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
"At this point, a discussion on software has turned into one about the price of an alcoholic beverage. The problem was not that explaining the meaning is impossible—the problem was that the name for an important idea should not be so confusing to newcomers. A clearer term was needed. No political issues were raised regarding the free software term; the issue was its lack of clarity to those new to the concept."(3/3)@Oozenet
(DIR) Post #AXLIY7bBCNwQm2I4WW by Oozenet@mastodon.social
2023-07-04T00:00:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey They have a point, but GNU have always been hard core idealists not willing to budge on principles, which is both their greatest strength and their greatest weakness.2/2
(DIR) Post #AXLIY8Re3JuPOkpyIi by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-07-04T06:38:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Oozenet > GNU have always been hard core idealists not willing to budge on principles, which is both their greatest strengthI agree with both points.> and their greatest weaknessTheir greatest weakness is to attribute malicious motives to people who choose different strategies for pursuing the same goal. Comparing and criticizing strategies is totally legitimate. Accusing people of being turncoats for choosing a different one is not.
(DIR) Post #AXLJjfsYBbJCEPUKga by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-07-04T06:52:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jrballesteros05 > RMS or the FSF wasted too long trying to explain the "free beer" vs "freedom" stuffYou probably won't be surprised to learn you're not the first person to make this criticism. In fact, it was made so frequently, he wrote an essay to avoid having to constantly respond to it:https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html@ploum
(DIR) Post #AXLK3kFbdouja9qJKi by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-07-04T06:55:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jrballesteros05"We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters. What we advocate is not “open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed source.” To make this clear, we avoid using those terms."RMShttps://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html@ploum
(DIR) Post #AXLOKNbBVtvY4H7iKW by Oozenet@mastodon.social
2023-07-04T07:42:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey It is 100% true for GNU to say it is an amoral approach, because it differs from the point of view of their moral principles. For them, doing stuff to make to easy for businesses was seen as selling out the three freedoms.
(DIR) Post #AXMpEC2wRZIwQELCt6 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-07-05T00:19:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Oozenet> It is 100% true for GNU to say it is an amoral approach, because it differs from the point of view of their moral principles1) You of all people know better than to say different morality = wrong morality.2) RMS acknowledges in his Open Source Misses the Point essay that most of the Open Source founders' ethical goals were the same as his, just their promotion strategy differed. So that GNU Manifesto comment doesn't even reflect the content of the essay it links to.
(DIR) Post #AXMrs1jKQ1JzuzHybI by Oozenet@mastodon.social
2023-07-05T00:49:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey You misunderstand me my friend. I did not say it was wrong morality, but rather that it is morally wrong from the point of view of GNU's moral position."Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success" Seems to me to be saying just the opposite. Perhaps I missed something? Where do you think he is saying that they are ethically aligned?
(DIR) Post #AXNOsCxbxfWNEgfDMW by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-07-05T06:59:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Oozenet> Where do you think he is saying that they are ethically aligned?Stallman says:"Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a 'marketing campaign for free software'"As you can see from Christine's piece, this describes everyone who was at that initial meeting, and involved in the subsequent founding of opensource.org (which became the OSI)*.* With the notable exception of Tim O'Reilly, who is... a special case.
(DIR) Post #AXNXe1A7vezQB5pHpA by Oozenet@mastodon.social
2023-07-05T08:36:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey They may have just seen it as marketing at first, but they did quickly become much more focused on pragmatics and, "Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. " which Stallman clearly sees as a betrayal of his principles. The inheritors of this pragmatism are widespread today.1/2
(DIR) Post #AXNXe2pzhU4dNEQEim by Oozenet@mastodon.social
2023-07-05T08:37:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey It is only now that the level of the betrayal of the golden hopes of the early days of software have been so clearly manifest, to great cost to us all, that ideas such as putting ethics first are able to get a hearing.
(DIR) Post #AXNrxQImgOT0jTPFSK by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-07-05T12:25:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Oozenet > which Stallman clearly sees as a betrayal of his principlesThat's not what he argues in the essay. He says it's an unwise strategy, as it fails to make a strong case for software as a potential violator/ protector of people's freedoms. But he says very clearly that the Open Source camp are not his enemies, as your use of "betrayal" implies.> The inheritors of this pragmatism are widespread todayTrue, but as the OP shows, there's a clear Open Source > Software Freedom pipeline.