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?
FOSS, by its very nature, does stand up for human rights more than non-FOSS. The developers believe in the user’s right to modify the source, and from that you can make the software more private/secure/etc. Closed source software doesn’t even do that much.
Sure, “the right to modify software” isn’t exactly the most fundamental right, but it isn’t nothing either.
“FOSS” is itself Newspeak.
RMS created the concept of Free Software, which has an ethical basis regarding freedom, community, and your ability to use your hardware in any way you like.
“Open Source” was invented by a corporate scumbag who noticed that Free Software was taking over all the server rooms and desperately needed to keep things on a profit-seeking basis. So he lifted the methodology and jettisoned the ethics, and called it Open Source.
If you give a shit, don’t go along with the gaslight. Never say FOSS - software is either Free as in speech, or Open as in corporate bullshit.
Language evolves. “Free software” does not distinguish between free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-freedom software. “Free and Open” removes all of the ambiguity. I will continue to say FOSS when I mean FOSS because I don’t care about the term some sundowned legend made once upon a time and I do not want to explain this every time it comes up in conversation.
My response was clearly addressed to people who give a shit, which by your own words, you do not. Why are you bothering me?
I mean, he disagrees, that’s pretty far from not giving a shit. I disagree, too, especially considering Free Software now colloquially includes freemium products like Winzip or even Spotify. Words and meaning change, your diatribe to redefine the bad as the good and the good as the bad based on how it used to be just puts people off of the good parts of the message and movement.
Why so aggressive?
Why not ask the guy he was replying to, who was aggressive first?
Since free is also used for no cost, I wouldn’t walk around telling people: I only use free software. And then talking about the distinction between free and free as in libre makes things even worse.
I wasn’t aware of these distinctions and the history behind them (mea culpa). But I think the current events can be a good occasion to make more people aware of this.
It’s a question of people caring. Many do not.
Christine Peterson is a corporate scumbag?
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.
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’.
Yeah, “inadvertently.” Because trying to rebrand “Free Software” to “Open Source” was entirely an accident.
