If I was better at remembering names, I would have connected earlier that the guy spamming the FOSDEM mailing list with his political peeves is none other than the last FSFE Fellowship winnier.
FSFE seems to have held the last election in 2017, before it was yearly. I'm not up-to-date on my FOSS drama, but I seem to recall that after the election, there was some kerfuffle about the results? Or I'm imagining that..
Sadly, this confirms my recent opinion about FSF(E). I wish it weren't so.
I grew up with the Free/Libre vs Open Source split, and have generally sided - except for practicalities - on the Free/Libre side of things. But growing up with this, I've also noticed how smart voices on such topics have also often had some questionable other opinions.
I think that actually comes down to a fairly reasonable mechanism, but that's a quick side topic I'll skip for now.
The point is, a lot of FOSS drama is unfortunately not about the topics, but the personalities involved.
Ironically, as much as I support Free/Libre software from a licensing point of view, it seems that right now the healthiest community and organization is actually the decidedly Open Source ASF. Of the large ones, at least.
I mean, I'm one degree removed from them. I tend to get more inside views on ASF drama than I get from anywhere else, and I still have that view.
Some days I wish ASF would just quietly switch over to GPL, and we could move on.
Not gonna happen, I know, but I can dream.
@jens for the life of me i can't be bothered by the nuances of licenses
Yes they are probably quite important in some state of the universe but its not the state of the universe we are in, or even remotely nearby
What really matters after decades of broken promises is to empower *masses* of people with self-sovereign computing (including mobile). Emphasis on masses (=billions)
It doesn't feel that it is license details that prevent that from happening...
@openrisk License details are roughly on the same level of importance to empowering masses with self-sovereign computing as education is for solving world hunger.
That is, there is absolutely no immediate connection. But the avalanche effect it has is probably the only way to get there over time.
Simply put, copyleft forces corporations to co-operate with communities rather than dictate terms. This isn't about software. It's about changing everyone's relationship to software.
@openrisk Of course, copyleft on its own will not necessarily be successful enough for this, so it's one component only.
Public money, public code should probably become public money, copyleft code, so that it will remain public forever *and* feed into this long-term effect.
I (and a few others here) like to talk about communal software to distinguish it from free/libre and open source; the point is precisely to feed the benefits into the community.
@jens i am not sure the corporate-community relation has been the obstacle. I do appreciate both cumulative effects and the legal framework implications but it feels those are luxury problems: how some successful inroad might get derailed, coopted or whatever
The free/open software movement has a virality (utility) problem in an age where people are more than even prone to virality (pun)
@openrisk I'm certain it's not the only obstacle, but it surely has been one in the past and continues to be so. It's just also getting a bit subtler.
You see this in recent years in how Python (PSF) is taken over by RedHat's concerns. By how Microsoft manages to insert proprietary tooling into FOSS communities, making them dependent. By how docker is removing more and more community features and turning them proprietary.
Good corporate-community relationships are less exploitative.
@jens it could certainly come back to bite in the sense that any major mainstreaming will immensely raise the stakes and an army of lawyers and 'product managers' will go with a fine comb to see how to extract advantage
But i'm almost wishing for this to be a scenario. It would mean the open source (or whatever label) community would have cracked the problem of how to become relevant to people
@openrisk I understand, but I'm not sure that's achievable. I mean, think of a more time-honored profession. Farmers are literally essential to people, but city dwellers often have no idea what farming entails, and would maybe even laugh at their rural ways.
FOSS already is relevant to everyone, in exactly the same way. It already is in every gadget, appliance or convenience. It's also exactly as invisible as the plow blades are on the dinner plate.
I've sort of come to accept that people...
@openrisk ... will never care, at least not in any direct sense.
Best to approach them via intermediaries. The best, most convenient products also happen to be entirely open. That's the way to get them.
That is, of course, hard to achieve.
@jens yes, that is exactly what I mean by virality. For better or worse (actually worse) people have been conditioned in digital virality, explosive adoption of new software contraptions (e.g. something like that tiktok phenomenon)
achieving a sort of "white virality" to counteract the dark variety feels like a difficult but not impossible creative art. e.g. one type of creativity is combinatorial and foss has a theoretical advantage in combining a vast and growing set of building blocks
@jens @openrisk Not to mention, if Mozilla had used GPL, the third most popular mobile OS in the world would have had to say free and open instead of being enclosed into yet another centralised sewer of surveillance. (Mozilla are still happy to work with them, btw.)
Your chart is ready, and can be found here:
Things may have changed since I started compiling that, and some things may have been inaccessible.
The chart will eventually be deleted, so if you'd like to keep it, make sure you download a copy.
I still keep my litle plasticky firefox os zte mobile as a reminder that what should happen is not what will happen
i was willing to try a sub-par phone for what it represented for the future, but most people didn't
but why didn't firefox os not catch on in the first place? not because of its license
i wish people would talk, analyse and nitpick as much about all these other factors and obstacles that must be overcome to expand the foss universe
@jcast Yeah... that's part of the problem for sure.
I mean, I can't exactly expect leadership in any movement to fully align their views with mine. That would be arrogant.
I would like to at least be unaware of their more toxic views, however. I understand that that is somewhat willfully blind. But is it too much to ask of leadership to stay on topic when voicing their thoughts in public?
Here, we have (by my reading) a leader attack an organization within the same movement based on a personal dislike, which they disguise (quite badly) as an issue tenuously related to the movement, with smoothly executed trolling tactics.
This isn't just a lack of discretion. It's effectively an abuse of their leadership position.
I don't think we can expect to come together if we let our leadership get away with this.
Then again, protesting this amplifies the issue.
given that mozilla tried and *failed* with their own effort (2012 - 2015) and KaiOS was released in 2017 that is actually a controlled experiment of sorts
ignoring the real possibility of bad timing, what made KaiOS an apparent success given it is the same (low end) target market?
are the proprietary bits making it more attractive? are the entities involved more incentivized by larger monetization prospects? how much of that links back to licenses or other arrangements etc
@openrisk It seems to me that there's a market for KaiOS only because no one else had a viable platform for 4G feature phones about four years ago. Closed app store and preinstalled Facebook / Google crap might have helped on the vendor side. I think the KaiOS browser platform hasn't been updated for years and is not in a good shape anyway?
Microsoft goes beyhond inserting proprietary software, they insert they own people as managers, even in governments. This is a political issue, Microsoft is lobbyied for by the US government and imposed on other countries forcefully.
They lobby to break open standards and make sure they aren't used, and make the public institutions are dependent on them so the US can spy on other countries and maintain a monopoly on IT.
A private instance for the Finkhäuser family.