People new to #FreeSoftware assume it's "free as in free beer". #OpenSource misses the point - it's about the freedom (and for so many in India, "open source" = "free as in free beer" 😮💨🤦♀️). #Libre is unfamiliar and not self-explanatory.
That's why I call it #FreedomRespecting software. Can we all please switch to that?
I'll try to explain my reasoning a little, bear with me.
With #FreeSoftware, people think they know what free means already. It sparks no curiosity.
IME #OpenSource is better-known, but people just think it means "free of cost".
#Libre doesn't mean (or even hint at) anything to Indians, unless they're already #FOSS geeks.
1/
But perhaps it's just me being OCD with language as I tend to be, and perhaps it's not as big a deal, and perhaps what we really need is more good old-fashioned FOSS evangelism 😅
(And PRs. Lots of PRs.)
3/
Also, #FreeSoftware, #Libre / #OpenSource /mukt/āzād/swatantra software...all describe the effect on _the software_...that the software is freed from being private property. (We could even call it #Anarchist software 🙃)
That's good, but I'm more interested in describing the effect of such software on its _users_...hence, #FreedomRespecting software.
4/
@contrapunctus to be honest, I consider the FreeSoftware vs OpenSource battle too much confusing. It can be useful on the home page of the FSF for declaring their ethical values, shared by all their licenses, but: for normal users the distinction between FOSS and OSS is too much fine; for developers it is too much unrefined. So, IMHO, it is useful as a marketing tool for the FSF, but not in the face of normal users.
All OpenSource licenses can be grouped in various categories, according their practical effects: the code is forever reusable/free/libre or there can be proprietary forks (e.g. GPL/LGPL vs MIT/BSD); the license is viral or not (e.g. GPL vs LGPL/MIT); the license can be combined with other licenses (e.g. GPLv3 code cannot be used in GPLv3+ code or LGPLv2 code cannot be used in LGPLv3 code); the license is viral also if used in network services (e.g. AGPL vs GPL); do you trust the organization responsible of the license or not (e.g. LGPLv2 vs LGPLv2+); etc..
So, I would always use the term OpenSource because IMHO it won the battle on the mind of end users. Then maybe, if one want to justify the use of a certain license, there can be terms like ForeverOpen (LGPL), MandatoryOpen (GPL), OpenSourceWithRestrictions (e.g. SSPL), but in the end, it is the specific used license dictating the usage scenario of the code, not its marketing adjectives.
Instead Anarchist, Free, Cooperative and other terms are fine if used for characterizing the spirit of a community around a project. Not the software itself.
My 2cents.
@mzan @contrapunctus the purpose of OpenSource and FreeSoftware is different.
FreeSoftware ensures users can modify software if they want it to be different (or pay someone of their choice, to do it).
OpenSource is not about users. It's a software development methodology, that helps developers.
With OpenSource developers can create proprietary software, and therefore it doesn't fulfill the mission of FSF, that cares about the end users (customers, buyers,...) only, and not about developers.
@mzan @contrapunctus Of course, #OpenSource software can be modified by users, and it itself delivers same freedoms to users.
But, it doesn't have the protection, and some company could take it, modify it and ship it in (as) their products as a proprietary closed source software, where users would loose the right of inspection and modification of the software.
The #FSF wants this to not happen, and #FreeSoftware licenses should prevent this from happening.
@kravemir in general, I agree. For example, I think that for many companies the fact that Linux kernel is GPL is a bonus point, respect BSD kernels. Companies can collaborate, knowing that there will be no unfair competition, with closed source forks. So, your considerations can work also for companies, not only for users.
But your considerations can be too much low level for end users (often the philosophy of the community is more important than the perfect FOSS license), and not enough detailed for developers (FOSS licenses can introduces compatibilities headache for developers).
For example: Apache HTTP server is a well known product with a strong community. Who bothers, in this moment if it is using APL and not GPL. In worst case scenario, you can always create a fully free community and fork under a GPL license. See for example MySQL vs MariaDB.
For developers, there can be unexpected problems. For example if you write the perfect btree-library under LGPLv3(+) license, GPLv2 code cannot call the library. And this is unexpected for developers. If you write a Bison-like tool, you need to use LGPL header files, with custom exceptions. And so on. So I can understand, if some developers, with perfect free-software spirit, choose a simpler license like MIT, for avoiding these incompatibilities.
Funny enough, my favorite license would be an Affero-LGPLv3+ but it does not exist. :-) I like LGPLv3+ because: I trust FSF/GNU for next versions of the license (the "+" part); it is compatible with all next (L)GPL products; it can be used in any code with any license, and only improvements to my library had to remain free; end users can always relink/rebuild a propietary product with a better version of my library; the Affero part extends these properties also to cloud services.
@mzan I understand developers choosing the MIT license because of the (compatibility) convenience.
It's a higher priority for them, than free software and the mission.
It doesn't guarantee protection about conversion (forking) to closed-source proprietary software. It would be naive to think so.
But, that's perfectly fine to choose such a license, as it's their free choice what to do about their own work.
@mzan however, this choice doesn't follow free software goals.
It's just a software development methodology, that doesn't care what becomes out of this software, and what developer contributes to.
Long time ago, I've read the phrase - developers choose a license based on what they fear.
Some fear their software (library) won't be used and choose permissive licensing.
Others fear their software will be used in a way, that would deny users the freedoms, and choose (strong) copyleft.
@kravemir ok, I agree on all you wrote here and previously.
I thought better. For the sake of continuing the discussion... I think that Richard Stallman and FSF were right on many things, but there was a plan from private companies for deriding him/it, and picturing him as a fanatic.
He warned about Tivoization, and nowadays I don't own my Android smartphone. He was right about the benefits of GPLv3 vs GPLv2.
FSF movement can be extended also to all devices and products we don't really own, because we are not in control: e.g. cars, tractors, TV... Or the right to repair them.
Here we are probably on the same page.
I still think that OSS vs FOSS risks to become a divisive and useless battle, despite an honest one.
IMHO, the FOSS movement should focus more on an effective method for funding developers working on FOSS licensed code. Otherwise, choosing a (L)GPL like license can introduce more problems/headache than advantages: many end users do not see the advantages, despite there are, or worse think they are fanatics, and the code is not private-company friendly.
A community owned FOSS code, with a working community funding model, can be a win-win solution for developers and end users.
In other words: you cannot win the OSS vs FOSS battle only from a moralistic point of view. You must create a viable business model.
@mzan tractors are owned by farmers, or their companies. Trains are owned by companies or the state, etc...
And, there were cases of artificial firmware based obstructions.
In the cases above, the owner is the company or a person (i.e. taxi driver) providing the service, who bought the machine.
Either it's a service, or a purchase. There's always some owner.
I am not fond of "purchases" where you are tied (forced) to use services of the vendor.
@mzan and then, if you or company buys something, then you or the company is the owner, and then there shouldn't be any obstruction to do with the thing whatever you or company wishes to do so.
(obviously, warranty is voided by user's/owner's idiocy or unapproved modifications, but it's yours/company's choice to do so).
@mzan I don't see it as a battle though. It would be divisive and just a waste of effort (as you've said already).
I see it as awareness and a choice of what I support.
Knowing and consciously choosing what I contribute to.
Doing so either with my money, or with my efforts. And, obviously, I won't support something that works against me (or my morals).
@mzan about the (L)GPL topic, vs open-source, vs proprietary software.
I once saw a comment on reddit:
> Either I work for companies or I work for free (for people). But, when I work for companies I expect to get paid.
It was about making open-source software, that helps companies build proprietary products.
It is quite a nice food for thought.
@mzan and now, when it comes to free time work, I see open-source as the worst "middle ground" in between proprietary and free software.
For me, open source is just a software development methodology benefiting (mutual) growth of software based corporations and companies.
And, they pay developers to contribute to open-source.
And, they make their proprietary software development more efficient thanks to it.
@mzan I am not against open-source.
If somebody, some company or corporation, would pay me for writing it. I'd gladly accept the offer.
I just won't be writing open-source from my own resources (my money, my free time).
@mzan and about purchases and spending my money.
Well, I prefer the true ownership of what I buy.
But, well, in the end,... I'm limited to what's available out there.
And, there's also another choice - give it a pass,... nah, I can live without it.
@mzan though, (some) users do not care about these aspects at all. Same as (some) people don't care about politics at all. Yet, both affect the socioeconomics (also as you've shown about fair competition of companies).
What I said is actually the high level (objective).
Where it gets complex is the (legal) low level, subtle differences, technicalities and other little things that can cause incompatibilities.
And, LGPL is yet another thing.