On Saturday 18. November 2017 07.13.12 Jonas Oberg wrote: > > As has already been said, people sometimes talk about "open source" when > they refer to the four freedoms, or vice versa. I do not think it's > helpful for anyone to try to divide people by the terminology they use. > > I can not stress this enough, because it strikes a nerve. I am what you > might call a neoliberal -- or at least a liberal of some sort. I have > no patience for socialism and I've never voted for the right.
Neoliberalism and liberalism are not the same thing. And, honestly, if people didn't want anyone to mention how terminology is used by different groups and why this is done, why was the topic even brought up on this list? So, an article was published on a site run by a corporation that would clearly prefer to rehabilitate the "open source" term, avoiding the use of "Free Software" for reasons I have already mentioned. I appreciate that it acts as some kind of reminder that the software under the different labels can have the same properties, and I understand that people can talk about "open source" while actually thinking of "software freedom". I personally used "open source" myself for quite some time before realising that it didn't communicate my motivations. A substantial reason for not continuing to use the term was the way "open source" was being used to emphasise efficiency and other properties that are orthogonal to the actual properties conferred by the licensing, meaning that "open source" was being used to advocate unsustainable economic models for Free Software development. What all this leads to is those people Hellekin mentioned who "have [a] large disposable income and sit on top of the pyramid" doing very well telling the minions that Free Software licences applying to the code those minions have contributed to Free Software projects don't need to be upheld. This, largely because those people at the top of the pyramid would like to do things in their own personally-lucrative way. One of those people even went on the record recently to boast that he had used his influence to eliminate his employer's financial support for one of the few organisations who can be bothered to pursue Free Software licence violations to the extent required to uphold the interests of copyright holders and end- users. Pulling down what is probably a good six-figure dollar salary while giving the minions and end-users a promise of "jam tomorrow", compelling them to donate what they can spare to remedy the situation, is a pretty good example of neoliberalism in action if you ask me. Maybe such people do use terms like "Free Software" and "software freedom" with a straight face, but the hypocrisy would be obvious. Far better for them that they use terminology that doesn't make people think about freedoms. Paul _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
