1. 68
  1.  

  2. -5

    Might come out a bit off-topic and nit-picky but haven’t we established a long time ago that term Open Source Software is really harmful and should be avoided?
    Why not just call it free or libre software - it sounds better and it’s much more representative especially as it can also be applied to non-software subjects. Freeculture is a pretty big movement and would definitely fit the defined agenda of this project.

    I’m not implying they should change the name - just a note for any future projects.

    1. 2

      but haven’t we established a long time ago that term Open Source Software is really harmful and should be avoided?

      I am out of the loop, can you share where you got the idea from that there is any consensus on that?

      1. 3

        This is a spinoff in an ongoing cultural push from the FSF.

        EG https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

        There is really, definitely not consensus (or anything even close to it).

        Indeed, I suspect consensus will remain elusive (or impossible) until the number of technologists stops growing so quickly; practitioners with over 5 years experience remain a minority - as they have been for many, many years.

        1. -3

          This is a spinoff in an ongoing cultural push from the FSF.

          Hardly, the consensus is already here. The only people still using “open source” are technologically illiterate or ignorant. The reason why I even pointed out this because of usage of “oss” in the domain name - acronym that I hadn’t seen in years at least. Here’s an exercise for you - try googling oss and try to find something relevant! And then compare it to foss or floss.

          What does open source even mean? It’s a hijacked marketing term that is meaningless.
          The source code is avaible to look at somewhere? How is that meaningful information outside from academia and black markets? “open source” doesn’t guarantee that the code on your machine has to be open it’s that just it exists somewhere and could be potentially looked at. Further it doesn’t mean you can replicate the code you’re looking at as “open source” can still be copyrighted. It’s an absolutely non-sense of a term that has no place other than to exploit userbase through the illusion of software that respects user’s rights but in reality it can be just as bad as a binary blob.

          1. 13

            The only people still using “open source” are technologically illiterate or ignorant.

            Wow, and the Free Software zealots wonder why have such a hard time convincing people they are right…

            1. 1

              sorry maybe I used an incorrect word here as “ignorant” seems to be very loaded in american culture. I meant in the spirit of “unware” as in people who are aware of open source vs free/libre software debate usually chose the later.

              1. 5

                That’s part of it. Another part (as alluded in my other comment) is that it assumes the world is made up of people who are unaware of the issue, and people who agree with you.

                You are getting downvoted for expressing that anyone who disagrees with you is simply misinformed. That is an elitist, arrogant attitude to hold.

                1. -1

                  I mean I provided sound arguments to make my case - my claim was not empty handed. If you disagree feel free to prove me wrong.

                  Its really hard to argue the case in favor of “open software” and that’s why people in this thread instead endulge in a form of ad hominem.

                  1. 4

                    These are difficult times and we haven’t got the same opportunity we usually do to step away from the keyboard.

                    that’s why people in this thread instead endulge in a form of ad hominem.

                    Your claim that “The only people still using “open source” are technologically illiterate or ignorant” was read as a completely unsupported ad hominen attack - by you - in a direct reply to me. People are making fun of you for this. You apparently didn’t intend it that way, but it’s affected peoples impression of you nonetheless.

            2. 10

              Hardly, the consensus is already here. The only people still using “open source” are technologically illiterate or ignorant.

              You are not helping your argumentation with this elitist attitude.

              try googling oss and try to find something relevant

              Never was an issue for me.

              1. 1

                How is it an elitist argument? The word “ignorant” just means a person without knowledge but it seems like it has a very negative connotation. Maybe I should have worded it as “unware” as the word “ignorant” seems to have made everyone upset.

              2. 8

                NO TRUE SCOTSMAN WOULD USE THE TERM OSS

                1. 3

                  I’m neither ignorant nor illiterate. I simply (gasp!) disagree with you.

                  The FSF want you to use more precise terms, like “Source Available” or “Libre”, and avoid fuzzy/vague terms like “Open Source”.

                  I’m happy to use the more precise terms when I want to express those specific ideas, but I’m not going to write out “Software that is Source Available, Libre/Free Software, or public domain software” every time I need to talk about the collective group.

                  1. 0

                    You argue that open source is more pragmatic when it’s clearly not. It’s appears to be explicit but it’s just misleading and frankly meaningless.
                    As an alternative libre software is short, simple and while not awfully explicit it doesn’t mislead you. There are no hidden meanings it’s software that respects users freedoms that are defined as transparent code that you can modify - very simple.
                    Finally in my opinion it just sounds better - it’s short, has no conflicts (like the word free) and sounds a bit exotic and in all fairness free software movement is quite exotic, so it’s a perfect fit!

                    but I’m not going to write out “Software that is Source Available, Libre/Free Software, or public domain software” every time I need to talk about the collective group.

                    Libre is a perfect word that is already carved out a strong pressence in software community. I mean I just typed in “define libre” in my search browser and I got software related results.
                    Just say libre software and everyone will know what you mean.

                    1. 5

                      You argue that open source is more pragmatic when it’s clearly not. It’s appears to be explicit but it’s just misleading and frankly meaningless.

                      Open source software, for historical reasons, exists as a marketing term and shorthand (very purposefully!) to denote software that has the source available but does not have the cultural baggage of libre software. Whether or not that’s your aesthetic is immaterial–the fact remains that there are many people who want to be able to view and modify the source of a given piece of software but who aren’t interested in the typical rights afforded or culture espoused by libre software.

                      As a side note, your presupposition of “everybody agrees on this” is bad rhetoric unless you’re talking to a crowd already on your side–it blows up in rather spectacular fashion via counterexample (as evidenced here) if even one person dissents. In the future, you may have better luck with “many” or “several” instead of absolute predicates.

                      1. 2

                        “Libre software” is what I say when that’s what I mean.

                        Sometimes I want to refer to other things, though, and I use different words in those cases.

                        For some reason, some people appear to get very upset about this.

                    2. 2

                      As one of the signers of the linked manifesto and the current project lead of a widely used open source project I have no problem with the term “open source software” and would be hesitant to use “libre software” to describe what I do (despite being a long time dues-paying member of FSF).

                      I think a more practical way to look at software “openness” is described in https://coiled.io/blog/stages-of-openness.html . It is less about the code and more about the community around the code.

                      Further it doesn’t mean you can replicate the code you’re looking at as “open source” can still be copyrighted.

                      All code is copyrighted, full stop. The question is what the license is and what you can do with it.