Aral Balkan
Follow

The Difference Between Free/Libre and Open Source

“Free/Libre = Open Source + Ethics
<=>
Open Source = Free/Libre - Ethics”

—Christophe Lafon-Roudier, @Framasoft

@aral @Framasoft

Free/Libre = Open Source + Ethics
Open Source = Free/Libre - Ethics

Ok, then :

Free/Libre = (Free/Libre - Ethics)+ Ethics.

So :
Free/Libre = Free/Libre.

This is not helpful in anyway.

The definitions of all this is shitty.

(fr) lehollandaisvolant.net/?d=2018

@tvn @aral @Framasoft congratulations, you discovered equivalence and algebra?

@trwnh @aral @Framasoft yes, at least it’s something, since the differences between OS and FS remain undiscovered with only that.

@bjoern @aral @framasoft I think the slide by Christophe quite nails it.

@bjoern @aral @Framasoft

I agreed on this definition some time ago, but now I strongly disagree on the fact that "open source" and "libre" are the same and that we should not divide the community.

Why ?
1. the GAFAM are now the most productive OS code producers, and they obviously don't care about ethics
2. we must recognize people who had ethics and political will in mind. Using "libre" terms is a way to recognize each others.

@bjoern @aral @Framasoft

And I'm ready to use even another term. But I don't want the confusion last any longer.
I make (and Framasoft) make free/libre software to adress freedom issue, not technical issues.
Having opensource code in military satellites or war drone is not a victory to me.
Open source is part of free/libre software, but libre should differenciate on ethics and social goals. And this difference matters a lot in capitalism surveillance age.

@bjoern @aral @Framasoft

Oh and to be clear, the sentence I strongly disagree with is on fsfe.org/freesoftware/basics/c « The different terms focus on different aspects, even if they describe the same software.s. (...) »

It was true (for me), but not anymore (for me)

@aral @Framasoft @angristan as defined by the FSF, and only the FSF, forever and ever, amen.

No thanks, I'd rather die than give another entity moral authority over me.

@rook @Framasoft @angristan FSF doesn’t have a patent on ethics. Open source, however, is notable for having come into existence as an allergic reaction to the ethics and morality in free software by businesses that did not want ethics or morality to impede their ability to fence off the commons, adopt free as in free labour, and implement open as privatisation.

@aral @Framasoft @angristan That's a very different argument. The way you put it makes it out as though anyone using OSS in an "ethical" way is "Free/Libre" which are FSF terms. That's a relation which is absolutely false, unless you define "ethics" by use of the GPL. That's not an ethical stance, it's a moral one, and it's extreme.

There is no need for any of this doublespeak. You're shutting out the very people you need to have the conversation with.

@rook @aral @Framasoft @angristan Do you call out doublespeek whenever someone tries to define what they mean by "ethics"?

Also he's probably incorporating The Four Freedoms in his definition of ethics, not the GPL.

@alcinnz @aral @Framasoft @angristan

When redefining ethics to to mean FSF dogma, doublespeak is an extremely polite term.

@rook @aral @Framasoft @angristan I was making a point about the vagueness of the term "ethics". It tends to have a different definition for each individual.

Also RMS may sound very dogmatic, but if you actually listen to him he's actually quite reasonable.

@alcinnz @aral @Framasoft @angristan

Then you should have said that. The way you put it is dishonest and insulting.

Regardless of what you think of RMS, or what I think of RMS, allowing him or FSF to dictate what's acceptable in absolute is not a valid ethical position.

@rook @aral @Framasoft @angristan Aaah, caught out trying to be succinct!

I will agree that we need to accept other definitions of ethics, and not insist others adopt ours. At most suggest.

@alcinnz @aral @Framasoft @angristan

The way I see it, there is one definition of "ethics" as a term, importantly: by which the *content* of one person's ethic might differ from that of another.

My objection with the original post is that it implies the ONLY acceptable content (re: software) is the FSF, by way of their Free/Libre terminology, which is in direct contradiction with that definition. That could be "an" ethic, but not absolutely not "ethics."

@maiyannah I don't think that works ... since ESR founded OSI && wrote that book
@boneidol So that invalidates the fact that the OSI exemplifies the thinking he describes using that allegory?
@maiyannah it just means that mapping Cathedral -> OSI; Bazaar -> FSF doesn't work very well as a one line throwaway comment!
@maiyannah thats not what I said... OMFG !  Bazaar/Cathedral are dev practices; it's nothing to do with OSI/FSF or software freedom ethics. The metaphor you provided seemed contrived to me and not a good fit.  But whateverz. Enjoy.

@boneidol
Btw, you also have to keep in mind that the first version of the Cathedral and the Bazaar says "Free Software", which was replaced by "Open Source" later. As said, the book is mainly about a development methodology which you can apply to Free Software (no matter how you call it) and proprietary software as well.
@maiyannah

This is obviously the word of a free software zealot :P
@mangeurdenuage https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

"The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of “free software” made some people uneasy. That's true: raising ethical issues such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer to ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical. This can trigger discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to it. It does not follow that we ought to stop talking about these issues.

That is, however, what the leaders of open source decided to do. They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might be able to “sell” the software more effectively to certain users, especially business."
@aral @framasoft  lean to agree, but "open" *has* ethical values "free/libre" doesn't emphasize. It's additive. http://qttr.at/21v3

@gemlog

@aral @Framasoft

What is wrong with GPL ? Only proprietary SW have a problem with GPL, isn't it?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

This is my personal Mastodon.