Free/Libre = Open Source + Ethics
Open Source = Free/Libre - Ethics
Ok, then :
Free/Libre = (Free/Libre - Ethics)+ Ethics.
Free/Libre = Free/Libre.
This is not helpful in anyway.
The definitions of all this is shitty.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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."
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.
This is my personal Mastodon.