Back

@eloquence I agree with the general idea here, but WRT "Open Source" I don't. That branding was deliberately invented to be confused and conflated with Software Freedom, so as to deflate the emancipatory movement into a sort of voluntaryist, CV-enriching, capitalism-compatible unprotected commons. To push back on that in favour of Free/Libre, Emancipatory Software is pretty important.
Of course, RMS did a poor job of that by choosing "Free" as the keyword and sticking to it with characteristic obnoxiousness even as it continued to confuse people.

@seachaint

I'm familiar with the term's origins, but one of the beautiful things about language is that it evolves in the context of its use by humans every day. I have seen countless humans use this term with an emancipatory intent, and I do so myself frequently. That intent is (and should be!) communicated through more than two words, which (in my view) is far more important than whether you say "open source" or "free software".

@eloquence Also agreed, yes. I'm only saying that the _distinction_ remains important - if you say "Open Source" I might rely on context to know whether you're talking about something corporate or emancipatory, but if you say "Libre" or "Free Software" I know without context. The terms aren't interchangeable, and would be the lesser for it, if they were.

@seachaint

That's very persuasive, but allow me to push back a bit. What do we really know without context when someone says "libre" or "free software"?

For all I know, the next thing they'll say is "But I hate what the SJWs are doing to it with their codes of conduct and cancel culture", and I know that their idea of liberation is very different from mine.

With the implosion of the FSF linked to misogyny and harassment, more people may gravitate towards "open source" for that reason alone.

@eloquence I'll accept that: one term confuses purpose, the other confuses culture. Both are kinda tainted.. I like the appeal of newer terms like "communal", "emancipatory", etcetera.

I suppose the fact that you and I, while generally agreeing on the better and worse aspects of the scene, can argue on the relative bad-ness of the two older terms is proof enough that it's time to move on from them both. But we had better move quickly to get out the new mission and branding because, as you say, people are going to fall off the better parts of Libre software and land in merely "open", or worse "shared source", or some other neolib rebranding.

@eloquence @seachaint I'm going to push back on the idea that we need some Official New Organization to proclaim The Definition(TM) of a new term. I think the term "cooperative technology" will be more resilient and flexible if we make it catch on relying on the obvious meaning of those two ordinary words put together. Neither "free software" nor "open source" ever communicated the ideas behind them without further explanation. (Arguably "open source" kinda does to programmers.)

@be @eloquence @seachaint I've personally always really felt that semantics in this context matter on the basis that I see corporations continually using the word "open" to refer to just about anything they like.

Forcing a definition for one or two terms is something I feel is useful for creating a rallying cry for people to more quickly organize. I know what people mean immediately when they say "FOSS", but when people say "open" I need them to re-explain

@MadestMadness @eloquence @seachaint "Open" is open to the interpretation of whatever capitalists want it to mean.