There's this letter going around that calls for the board of the @fsf to step down over coming back.

People make valid points about it, I'm not going to weigh in on that.

What gets me, very personally, is that one of the people signing is the Software Foundation member and employee that shut down a discussion with me the other day with a racist remark. I'm still waiting for a reply to my complaints.

I'm not even sure how to process that.

Somewhat indirectly related, that whole issue with brings up again the schism that occurred between free software and open source, and how one was subsumed into the other via the abbreviation.

The free software movement cared about access for everyone. If you didn't like something, you could change it.

The open source movement cared about "given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow". They (some more, some less) wanted this quality also in commercial software.

Licenses mattered here.

Ironically, these days I see more younger people caring strongly about the freedom aspect of free software, whilst choosing open source licenses... usually because "they're easier".

I mean, fair enough. They are.

That's the point of free software licenses, that they don't allow everything so easily, but they allow the things that matter for human freedoms.

Now and the seem largely irrelevant, because they made themselves *be* irrelevant by their actions.

And at the same time...

@jens The set of free software licenses and the set of open source licenses are roughly the same set. Any non-proprietary license with widespread use is in both sets. The distinction is why and how you collaborate around your software.

Depending on whether you have many-eyeballs or user-freedom motivations for sharing your software, your tactical choice of license may tend toward one license subset or another, but I think saying that there are the categories FS license and OSS license only leads to misunderstandings.
Follow

@clacke But does it? The licenses have different clauses to support those different points of view.

@jens Copyleft and non-reciprocal licenses alike are used for free software. Copyleft and non-reciprocal licenses alike are used for open source.

Free software projects tend to pick a copyleft license for tactical reasons except when they don't. (Fossil)

Open source projects tend to pick a permissive license for tactical reasons except when they don't. (MySQL)
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Finkhäuser Social

A private instance for the Finkhäuser family.