clacke: exhausted pixie dream boy πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺπŸ‡­πŸ‡°πŸ’™πŸ’›
Open Source is a double-edged sword. It is a betrayal and a watering-down of Free Software ideology, but it is also a Free Software double agent.

Each day, another poster on Medium discovers that "true Open Source" has been "lost", without realizing that what they heard was "Open Source", but what they wanted was Free Software.

It's easy to be smug toward them, but I think it's better to be happy. Less "told you so" and "get off my lawn", and more "You're one of today's lucky 10'000!" #xkcd1053

I think their cries are testament to the pro-Free Software strategy of Open Source working. How do we gently introduce them to the rest of "true Open Source", a.k.a. Free Software?

... and get them off Medium?
Feb 13, 2021 at 7:18amWeb
Show threadadnan360Feb 13, 2021

@clacke Well, it has been "lost" because we make fun of too much libre. Think of how we think of GNU IceCat. It doesn't run nonfree JS by default. Many websites break if LibreJS is not disabled, or scripts whitelisted. Some people in the community will call this unusable, or even unnecessary. But they are code and they are nonfree. Nonfree code never did any good.

Linux-libre today should've been the real Linux project and nonfree stuff should've been separate. Convenience got the best of us.

Show threadclacke: exhausted pixie dream boy πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺπŸ‡­πŸ‡°πŸ’™πŸ’›Feb 13, 2021
@adnan360 I put scare quotes on "lost" because Open Source cannot be "lost". It comes pre-lost, like pre-worn jeans.

Linux comes with binary blobs because it is Open Source, compromised by design for convenience and adoption. Linux-libre is Free Software.
Show threadadnan360Feb 14, 2021
@clacke Haha. True.
Show threadJulien DeswaefFeb 13, 2021
@clacke talk them into changing their default license choice to #AGPL, signing the Contributor Covenant, making sure their developpment team is not a majority of cishet white males, discuss Ethical licenses, etc. Etc. https://ethicalsource.dev/licenses/
Ethical Source Licenses

The Organization for Ethical Source is a global, multidisciplinary community devoted to centering justice, equity, and human rights in the practice of open source.

Show threadclacke: exhausted pixie dream boy πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺπŸ‡­πŸ‡°πŸ’™πŸ’›Feb 13, 2021
@xuv Wow, my response to your brief comment will be complicated.
Show threadclacke: exhausted pixie dream boy πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺπŸ‡­πŸ‡°πŸ’™πŸ’›Feb 13, 2021
@xuv First of all, emphasis on the "gently introduce". The "true Open Source" limbo is full of people who were put off by purists who wanted to talk them into things.

Like I said, I want to get people off Medium, but I don't think I can talk them into it, that just makes people put their shields up. I should have said I want to guide them off Medium, perhaps. Free Software as it looks today suffers from a communication problem.
Show threadclacke: exhausted pixie dream boy πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺπŸ‡­πŸ‡°πŸ’™πŸ’›Feb 13, 2021
@xuv I agree with the AGPL as the *default* license choice, as long as it's clear that there is no fault line going straight between FS=*GPL and OS=BSD/MIT/ISC.

Open Source open core projects with CLAs use the AGPL as an extractive tool, to sell exceptions and protect their moat.

Free Software projects can use bounded-copyleft and non-copyleft software to create standards and infrastructure when that makes tactical sense.
Show threadclacke: exhausted pixie dream boy πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺπŸ‡­πŸ‡°πŸ’™πŸ’›Feb 13, 2021
@xuv I would like diversity and equality to be a part of the Free Software ethos, but as it currently stands actually the lack of it is yet another thing that drives people from Free Software and keeps them in "true Open Source" limbo.

Some loud people in FS treat diversity as an outside threat to meritocracy, which they believe is real and effective, and as a corporate PR ploy and a way for corporates to gain influence in projects. Note how the FSF didn't adopt a real CoC but went with the Kind Communications Guidelines instead, which is part insufficient, part counterproductive.
Show threadclacke: exhausted pixie dream boy πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺπŸ‡­πŸ‡°πŸ’™πŸ’›Feb 13, 2021
@xuv Ethical licenses go counter to the current foundation of Free Software, and I'm personally not convinced that the license is the best place to fix the real problems ethical licenses try to fix. I believe in governance and community guidelines as a better place to address ethics, even though it cannot regulate downstream, which licensing tries to do.
Show threadAlonealastalovedalongtheFeb 13, 2021

@clacke

"Some loud people in FS treat diversity as an outside threat to meritocracy, which they believe is real and effective, and as a corporate PR ploy and a way for corporates to gain influence in projects. Note how the FSF didn't adopt a real CoC but went with the Kind Communications Guidelines instead, which is part insufficient, part counterproductive."

This is such a tragically naive, privileged view and its heart breaking that leaders in the FSF take this shit view.

@xuv

Show threadAlonealastalovedalongtheFeb 13, 2021

@clacke @xuv

What FSF needs is for the people to understand that software is political and that software is complicit in racist, sexist, exclusionary structures in society and that it should be FIGHTING those things, not putting up a "boys club only" sign.

FSF needs to be more openly, radically leftist.

The behavior I have read about stallman makes it seem to me for all he has contributed he also has done a huge amount damage to the movement by pushing away tons of people.

Show threadclacke: exhausted pixie dream boy πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺπŸ‡­πŸ‡°πŸ’™πŸ’›Feb 13, 2021
@xuv Thank you. Your comment helped me unpack a lot of this for myself.

I'm painting a partly bleak picture of the Free Software movement as centered around the FSF, but it's not all that bad. There a modern Free Software movement with a different center:

- The Software Freedom Conservancy is a Free Software fiscal sponsor that has Outreachy as a valued and prominent member.
- Guix is a GNU project that has a Contributor-Covenant-derived CoC and a welcoming atmosphere.

It might help to inform people who are stuck in "true Open Source" limbo that Free Software isn't all stuck in the white cishet gate-keeping 90s. There are projects that are all Free Software and all about bringing practical software freedom to all types of users. Projects that are friendly and welcome to all kinds of contributors. This is *not* exclusive to Open Source projects, and it's sad that there is a widespread perception that it is.
Show threadFikrān Al-Mutasā'il πŸ“πŸ‡΅πŸ‡Έ Feb 13, 2021
@clacke it took me time but I now see why a free software license might be preferable to an open source license. Are there any alternatives to the GPL?
Show threadclacke: exhausted pixie dream boy πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺπŸ‡­πŸ‡°πŸ’™πŸ’›Feb 13, 2021
@fikran The lists of Free Software licenses and Open Source licenses are nearly identical. It is one of the common misunderstandings within this topic that your choice of license determines your community. libranet.de/display/0b6b25a8-1…

What actually determines your community is the moral stance.
Claes Wallin πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺπŸ‡­πŸ‡°

@Julien Deswaef I agree with the AGPL as the default license choice, as long as it's clear that there is no fault line going straight between FS=*GPL and OS=...

Show threadclacke: exhausted pixie dream boy πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺπŸ‡­πŸ‡°πŸ’™πŸ’›Feb 13, 2021
Free Software views proprietary software as a problem that hurts society. It's about protecting the rights of end-users to study, modify and use the software in their lives. This tends to lead to the tactic of using a copyleft license, but that is a consequence of the ethics and goals, copyleft is not the center of Free Software.
Show threadclacke: exhausted pixie dream boy πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺπŸ‡­πŸ‡°πŸ’™πŸ’›Feb 13, 2021
Open Source is about software developers effectively collaborating on developing software. It views proprietary software as an annoyance, the value of which is often overrated by management, which holds back software development.

The core ethos is "share when you can", and often employs non-reciprocal licenses, so that a community of developers can work on core infrastructure together, while employing it together with proprietary software that their employers produce. But there are also projects that use copyleft licenses, often because the project is run by a single company that owns all the rights, and can sell exceptions to the copyleft requirements to companies that want to combine the software with their own, or minimize legal risk.
Show threadclacke: exhausted pixie dream boy πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺπŸ‡­πŸ‡°πŸ’™πŸ’›Feb 13, 2021
There are companies that contribute to or run Free Software, and there are lots of individuals that found, run and contribute to Open Source software, the involvement of a company isn't core to the difference either.

The *tendency*, because of the philosophical differencies, is that companies are drawn to Open Source projects. With some exceptions, companies are looking for practical gains and lowered cost, not user freedom.
Show threadclacke: exhausted pixie dream boy πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺπŸ‡­πŸ‡°πŸ’™πŸ’›Feb 13, 2021
Another tendency that comes out of the differences between FS and OSS, but which is not core to them, is their organizational structure.

Larger FS projects tend to be organized around either a US 501(c)(3) foundation of their own, or be hosted within a US 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor, an umbrella organization for multiple projects. A 501(c)(3) is bound by law to use its funds to further the public good and does not have shareholders or other stakeholders that take part in any profits.

Large OSS projects tend to be organized under large US 501(c)(6) organizations, trade associations, which often have companies as members. A 501(c)(6) is bound by law to benefit its members, and may buy and sell services from and to members to further that aim.

There are 501(c)(3)s and 501(c)(6)s that accept individuals and companies as members. There are FS projects that are run by 501(c)(6)s and there are OSS projects that are run by 501(c)(3)s. There is no legal definition, and no clear-cut differences in general, that can tell you the difference between a Free Software project and an Open Source one. It comes down to the motivations, actions and historical affiliations of the project what they will call themselves, and what others will call them.
Show threade. hashman Feb 13, 2021

@clacke not really true. I investigated changing the terms of the Open Source Initiative's affiliate membership program to treat 501(c)(3) and (c)(6) organizations differently. In practice, becoming a 501(c)(3) for FOSS is *extremely* difficult. This is why many projects choose to host under a pre-existing org like Conservancy or PSF.

The lines were so fuzzy that we concluded it made no sense to differentiate. The leadership makes much more difference for these projects than their IRS status.

Show threadMans RFeb 13, 2021
@clacke I don't really care whether people use GPL or BSD style licences for their software. What bothers me is the recent trend of trying to insert morality clauses, restricting use of the software to uses deemed "good" by the author. Unrestricted use is one of the things they got right with the GPL.
Show threade. hashman Feb 13, 2021

@clacke @jalcine can't say I agree. To many people, open source *is* free software. There's no difference. The term is more accessible. When you shout down people who identify it, you end up alienating people with similar interests.

Corporate co-option of the FOSS movement is not limited to "open source", as we've seen with many a GPL violation.

Show threadclacke: exhausted pixie dream boy πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺπŸ‡­πŸ‡°πŸ’™πŸ’›Feb 13, 2021
@ehashman @jalcine Yeah, we're just going to disagree then. The point of the rebranding to open source is to miss the point of free software, diminish the focus on user freedom and focus on developer convenience and community labor.

I know approximately one influential person who basically means free software, the whole philosophical package minus some of the hardcore moral package when he says open source, and that's Simon Phipps. Anyone else I hear talk about open source basically means you slap an open source license on it and share the code, boom, now you're part of the "movement". Some people talk about the Open Source Way, but that's more about community management and how to attract contributions, not how to protect users.
Show threadclacke: exhausted pixie dream boy πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺπŸ‡­πŸ‡°πŸ’™πŸ’›Feb 13, 2021
I don't think it's accurate to equate straight up violations of free software licenses with sneaky, fully legal appropriation of people's work.

I don't think I've ever seen a project calling itself free software while being set up entirely around one company extracting work from the community, but many projects calling themselves open source do just that.