cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/62536902
The ongoing discussions about age-verification and changes in Free and Open-Source Software and GNU Linux and related OSs made me realize a gross misunderstanding on my part. I think many other users may have the same misunderstanding (seeing many comments using the word “traitors”), and it’s important that we become aware of it. We must understand that using or saying “FOSS” or “Linux” does not automatically mean to stand up for human rights, for the community, against corporations, and similar goals and values.
If we read the comments in those age-verification discussions we can see that many developers and possibly also users make statements like “the developers have no obligation towards the community”, “the law is the law, no matter what the community wants”, “we must comply”, and similar. It’s important to realize that many developers work on FOSS not out of consideration for the community, or for human rights, or against corporations. For them it’s just one kind of software development. We may have projects that are FOSS and pro-corporations or pro-surveillance. The “F” in FOSS stands for freedom to modify and distribute the software by/to anyone in the community. It doesn’t stand for “software that promotes / stands up for general human freedom and human rights". But of course there are also developers that work with FOSS because of such values.
So for anyone who, like me, wants to use and promote software as an assertion of, and a stand for, human rights and against corporations, it’s necessary not to stop at “FOSS” or “Linux” but apply more scrutiny and more careful choices. Probably it’s always been like this, but the present times require extra awareness.
I wish there was an acronym or other word that made this moral aspect of some FOSS development clear. This would help users to recognize software projects that share their values, and also those FOSS developers who do work for those values. Is there such a term already out there?
I have a hard time imagining devs from Gnu (Guix etc) not having anti-corp attitudes, but I don’t know.
The whole open-source/Foss community have seen a huge influx of windows/AI ‘normies’ that does not share the collective ‘ideals’ where free/open are needed bco corporate tyranny/control (or whatever peeps did it for then). Newcomers are welcome, but they don’t necessarily care about any of the reasons the open source community survived and prospered. Currently the community is mostly viewed as just ‘free’ and ‘open-source’ tech standards pushed by corporates. They have inadvertently ‘polluted the well’ of what FOSS/open-source was, and reduced the unwritten ideals to just meaning ‘free’. Corps use ‘open-source’ now to boost their ratings, and the general corporate attitude is to take instead of giving…
I think it is fairly normal that newcomers doesn’t share all sentiments (whatever they are), so any growing movement must diverge/specialize. Here we are dealing with corporate encroachment and ‘term-takeover’ + a blatant attempt at setting the standards of the OS world. Corps will always do that, so as OP hints at, we may need to create a term that defines non-corporate/non-fascist digital living more directly.
However, it’s not easy agreeing what a new term should include/exclude.
Yeah, “inadvertently.” Because trying to rebrand “Free Software” to “Open Source” was entirely an accident.