What I find funny (sad) of this is that it start talking about the #freedom of #FreeSoftware, then explain #OSS as a #brand from #business-oriented technologists, then say #FLOSS / #FOSS is above the parts, then collapse it to #FLO, just to talk for the rest of the text about... #money.
No, Money! Just Money!
Not sustainable. Money!
To be clear, @z428, I agree that it's a legit way to earn a living.
It can also produce very good software.
The most important freedom is the freedom to #hack, to study and modify the software.
#Snowdrift "hope to address the problem of too many similar projects" in direct contrast with this freedom.
> "hope to address the problem of too many similar projects" in direct contrast with this freedom.
Reduced fragmentation in practice ≠ reduced freedom
Forking is an *essential* freedom, but not an end goal in itself. It's a necessary check on the power of any single dominant project and a tool for creativity. But fragmentation isn't itself desirable.
Fragmentation of what?
Nothing break, it's #software!
Forking is desiderable as more forks mean more solutions explored, more lessons learned and more experiments verified.
Fragmentation of *effort*, wheel-reinvention, etc.
If we have 10 projects that are all half-done and the same amount of resources (hours of work) could have made 1 or 2 really robust and complete projects, that's what fragmentation is.
A better metaphor: Reducing free-software fragmentation is like having a few deep friendships instead of just dozens of friendly acquaintances.
Reinventing the wheel is fundamental to #society if all wheel invented so far are triangular.
I'm sure you are in good faith but you are victim...
...of a cultural #hegemony.
Even to fight for #freedom you feel compelled to fight first and foremost for #money, fo gain funds for "the cause". Such hegemony is so strong that you cannot see when you trade the cause today for the hope of money tomorrow.
What if you got the problem backwards?
@Shamar ... even stronger because we didn't do much to provide people with alternatives that work for *them*. It's about *them*. It should be about *them* - while most of your reasoning is about *us*. Most of your points of view make perfect sense from a technology guys point of view. But that's pretty much it.
What you see as easy to use, good quality tools, I see as lock-in tools that reduce the expressiveness and freedom of people on many levels.
Having good tools empowers.
Needing good tools weakens.
The solution is not to market good tools nobody need, but to create good tools that foster people #curiosity.
@Shamar Have you ever considered doing such a discussion in example with musicians using Apple hardware and Steinberg software on these devices to do recording for their bands using these devices? You'll be pleasantly surprised of what you learn there. 😉
I will ask.
But I know well how many graphics professionals and artists love #Apple tools.
To be honest, I agree with #Stallman that using proprietary software is NOT a sin, something to be blamed or persecuted.
The problem is that it waive freedom and is hardly a free choice.
Given two identical softwares, with the same price and features would you chose the one who give you the right to hack it or the one who don't?
@clacke ... actual choices and everything linked to them. This is a problem. And we need to get out of our technical echo chamber to solve this. Trying to tell people they need to learn to make their own tools to be free is, like, five or six levels away from where those folks actually stand.
We can outsmart them once or twice, but then they exploit us, or break us, or #FUD us, or lobby against us, or throw at beating us as #money as needed because the only thing they CANNOT afford is our message to pass.
The only way to win is to change the terrain, to move the fight on dimensions where they are weak.
In your posts throughout: too much mind-reading. You put words in others' mouths and mistakenly assume intentions and values.
You're imagining disagreements that don't exist.
Surely you don't oppose coordination and cooperation, right?
We don't propose removing any freedoms for forking, redundancy, wheel-reinvention… they *can* be essential.
And using money within our capitalist system isn't endorsing capitalism.
I didn't know about my mind reading powers! :-D
If we agree in the matter you should really fix that text.
Some passages incompatible with #FreeSoftware:
1. "This may indicate merely an increased interest in #FLOSS among developers who would not likely reach their goals under any circumstances"
2. "Many projects are still essentially lone #developers “scratching an itch” .. so #development is heavily weighted toward whatever interests individual developers"
3. "the false premise that enthusiasts tinkering on their own things will somehow deliver usable and meaningful FLO technology to the public."
4. "overtly political rhetoric of software #freedom"
5. "#OpenSource succeeded at [...] addressing the ambiguity about price vs #freedom."
6. "Today, many non-partisans recognize both terms with combinations like #FOSS or #FLOSS” (because they ARE partisans, precisely #OSS partisans)
7. "easier forking has also lead to an increase in project schisms and a growing number of fragmented projects."
There's nothing wrong in coordination or collecting and distributing money.
But your text continously blame #hackers choice to fork or to donate the world a tool or to play with code.
You are serving #OSS developers...
...and this is totally fine and admirable.
Thanks for the pointed and constructive feedback!
We may go ahead and update those texts…
But clarification: we're don't *blame* free-software devs. We *celebrate* freedom to hack, fork, etc. — we're just saying it's naive to think that those things will *necessarily* deliver adequate freedoms and ethical software to all. Often cooperation, resources, and explicit ethical *intentions* make the difference in *addition* to hacking.
> "This may indicate merely an increased interest in #FLOSS among developers who would not likely reach their goals under any circumstances"
a confusing sentence indeed. Updated to:
"Of course, there will always be lots of trials and hacks that don't continue long-term, and that's fine — it just indicates healthy creativity."
incidentally, you must've read decent amount of our wiki to see that old floss-funding-history article…
Out of context, the sentences you quoted could give wrong impression, and we adjusted them but there may be others.
OSS has no concern about end-users retaining freedoms in how they use, study, modify, and share technology. OSS is an upstream developer-centric philosophy.
FS is about the freedoms reaching all the way downstream, and that's our priority
To be honest I have read that article and few pages more. But I've read that article a couple of times before as it reached my fediverse timelinea couple of times.
I'm glad to help.
I develop an operating system as a gift, thinking of the world I would like for my daughters and I hate when people tell me I should hack Linux instead...
... because I could earn a living by coding #FreeSoftware.
I know I could, but that's not what I want.
Most people who talk about #FLOSS actually marginalize #hackers to please users or corporations, and I hate this.
Think about #TempleOS: Terry Davis couldn't ever attend to #FOSDEM, despite being a great #hacker with an unique...
He would have certainly violated the #CoC because of his mental disease.
But nobody would pay for it.
And that's fine: the author never asked for #money.
Terry Davis is a corner stone for Free Software: if he is not welcome, no #hacker is.
As one of the Snowdrift.coop volunteers (none of the team is paid at this point), I can speak to my own person motivations:
If there were a way to simply *delete* money from the surveillance-capitalist tech companies even without funding FLO software, I'd pull that lever.
Free Software can benefit greatly from funding, but it's just a means to an end (a world where technology actually serves the public interest)
We agree on this goal.
I just think that to reach this goal we need to teach people to hack their own software and we need to build software people can hack.
The two go together.
They need and help each other.
That's why to me, the right to fork freely and bluntly is so important! :-)
Let's try. It will be fun!
But win-win is when people both hack their own software *and* share their hacks back upstream to benefit everyone.
The essential *right* to fork doesn't mean it's always good to fork if you can cooperate instead. It varies case-to-case, but usually cooperation is better.
And people who do less hacking shouldn't be mistreated or restricted by the technology. Hacking shouldn't be *required* in order to avoid abuse.
Nothing should be required in order to avoid abuse.
Reading and writing shouldn't be required in order to avoid abuse, but they are anyway.
We must give people the knowledge they need to be free.
As for sharing upstream I agree... in a way.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!