I feel it’s important for the future of our species that we understand the difference between “open” (as in “open for business”) and “free” (as in “freedom”).
This isn’t some inconsequential bike-shedding over terminology. It is the difference between living under a corporatocracy and living in a world with individual sovereignty and a healthy commons.
@aral I dont concider free software to be actually free. For software to be free, the people need control over the software to a certain extent.
Today free software tools gives open access to a lot of great tools, but tools that are developed to help the upper class suppress everybody else.
We need to take back control over development through connecting developers to the grass roots and let the grass roots finance the development.
@vegafjord There are lots of ways in which the free software movement of – what is it now, 40 years ago? – doesn’t meet our needs today. I mean, heck, some of our earliest critics were from that world because we didn’t toe the line or criticised some piece of dogma or other. But there’s a world of difference between “open” and “free” and the latter (however imperfect it may be) if the foundation we should be building on.
@aral Yes, its a good foundation, except that it is branded as free software. Freedom can not be reduced to a binary state. Freedom is subjective and should be explored from many angles. A feminist lense, an engineers lens, an activist, an organizer and so on. Therefore, I like to use the more descriptive term open to describe these tools.
@vegafjord The problem is Google likes to use “open” too. And their marketing budget is slightly larger than yours. So it means what they say it means. And that’s “open” as in “open for business.” (Liberal licenses and code that can easily be enclosed.)
@aral Being open doesnt mean it is freedom preserving, so Ill agree on that. And we certainly should ensure that licenses benefits the commons to the largest degree. That means using FSF licenses would make the most sense.
But in order to improve our understanding of digital issues, we do need neutral language first. Afterwards we can take an ideological approach. This way we ensure diversity of political thought.