[Thomas_Lord]

It is still valuable to ask people not to use the term "open source", and to explain why.

The free software movement is a liberation movement. As we have seen in the ~30 years since the movement started, when users are not allowed examine, modify, and share the software runs on their computers that software is used against them. Proprietary software is all about gaining power over users. It is not a theory anymore. It is an overwhelming, proved fact.

The "open source" brand was created to combat the liberation movement. The people who devised the "open source" name and promoted it oppose the free software movement. The "open source" founders set out to advance the cause of gaining power over users.

The free software movement fights for freedom. The "open source" instigators wanted to interfere with that fight, to distract people from it, and above all, to make it harder for the libre software movement to gain technical advantages over proprietary software.

[EvanPlaice]

> founders set out to advance the cause of gaining power over users

I'd argue that GNU set out to advance the cause of gaining power over developers. Specifically, to place arbitrary legal restrictions on software so devs who use it are forced to buy into the ideology of GNU.

The ironic thing about FLOSS is that it acts counter to the ideals of libre. There's no freedom in restricting how open source code is developed. In short, it enforces exclusivity.

It's intended for developers who want to maintain ownership of any/all development of the code they produce. To remain the de-facto benevolent dictators for life whether or not that is good for the health of a project.

RMS didn't create GPL out of some greater sense of altruism. Watch his talks about the early days before GPL. He created it in spite of the developers he worked with who moved on to industry. Stallman never moved on to industry and has spent a lifetime hiding away in academia and/or making a living off of awards and public speaking appearances where he preaches his ideology as canon.

You know who doesn't make a living from FLOSS? the thousands of contributors who helped make his projects the success they are today. Funny how RMS never acknowledges their effort.

Hurd will never deliver on it's promises and instead GPL piggy-backed on the success of linux to the point where (from a legal standpoint) both are essentially inseparable.

-----

As for 'open source'...

True freedom is allowing others to extend/improve the code for their own uses. I prefer 'open source' because it fosters the degree of freedom that the GPL only superficially claims to promote.

If others find value in my contributions and leadership then they'll support my projects and the direction I take. If somebody comes along that does a better job, so be it. That just means I probably have more room for improvement.

Removing one's ego from the process creates something much more valuable. An inclusive environment where others can join in, grow together, and move on to better things in life if they find the opportunity.

[belorn]

> I'd argue that GNU set out to advance the cause of gaining power over developers

Power that is shared equally is not held "over" anyone. Share-and-share alike is not power, its equality.

> The ironic thing about FLOSS is that it acts counter to the ideals of libre

According to which philosophy? John Locke (1632–1704) rejected several hundred years ago the notion that liberty should have no restrictions.

Thus, freedom is not as Sir Robert Filmer defines it: 'A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws.' ... Freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. Freedom of people under government is to be under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society and made by the lawmaking power established in it. Persons have a right or liberty to (1) follow their own will in all things that the law has not prohibited and (2) not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others

Rules that are common to everyone are not power, and its not counter to the ideals of libre. Shield me against the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others, and I will have liberty. Proprietary licenses and DRM are frameworks that arbitrary limits who can modify the software, who can read it, and who can use and share it.

[EvanPlaice]

"(2) not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others"

If you want to put it to the test, try creating a legal derivative work of a GPL/LGPL licensed project.

The license has enough grey area that the only guarantee is that the legal system could one day be used to subject you to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others. Via legal battles initiated by malicious actors and/or as a result of contributions by contributors who don't fully understand the depth of the GPL/LGPL restrictions.

I vote 'no confidence' in the GPL/LGPL license's purported guarantee of freedom. For the same reasons I wouldn't trust an enemy to always speak kindly of me behind my back.

The GPL/LGPL were bourne out of the desire to publicly spite others. They were initially accepted as canon because they were the first copyleft licenses.

I'll never feel safe or protected from legal recourse if I contribute to a GPL/LGPL project because I can never guarantee that the codebase is a completely original work. From a legal standpoint 'good faith' simply isn't good enough.

It's a personal choice. If you feel completely safe contributing under the terms, by all means, I'm not trying to stop you.

"Proprietary licenses and DRM are frameworks that arbitrary limits who can modify the software, who can read it, and who can use and share it."

By all means, I'm not advocating for proprietary licenses or DRM. I'm speaking strictly in terms of OSS (ex MIT) vs FLOSS (GPL/LGPL).

If a company or dev decides to use a proprietary license to protect their invested time/effort, that's their legal right.

DRM is... Well, I'm not going to touch that with a 20ft pole. Hopefully, one day we can find a means to make DRM completely irrelevant and/or unnecessary.

[Thomas_Lord]

Regarding "True freedom is allowing others to extend/improve the code for their own uses."

Can I correctly conclude, then, that you are enthusiastically supportive of people who violate copyright by making and giving away gratis copies? A fan of people who violate EULAs by reverse engineering? Approving of anyone brave enough to defy trade secret laws?

I am always a little surprised at the earnestness with which the counter-libre "open source" propaganda embraces as freedom a handful of very artificially erected rights that rest on state brutality and nothing else.

Further, that in the "open source" view, to resist that state brutality in order to protect users, share, and study power -- these are supposedly acts against freedom.

re: "True freedom is allowing others to extend/improve the code for their own uses. I prefer 'open source' because it fosters the degree of freedom that the GPL only superficially claims to promote."

What is clear is that you promote your freedom to rob others of freedom, with the help of state violence.

The freedom you advocate is a negative freedom: a bondage you want to (or want your employer to) impose on others.

[EvanPlaice]

Wat? How did you manage infer such a terrible message from my comment?

I'm a library author. Not some hack who copies other's code at will. I have never, and never will violate the license of another project. GPL/LGPL or otherwise.

I license my libraries under MIT so there's a guarantee that my copy will always be free for others to use. If some malicious actor tries to overwrite my copyright and assert ownership I can always prove prior art. That's the whole purpose of copyrighting original works.

If they choose to reverse engineer and/or modify my source to produce something better, power to them. Maybe I can learn something from their implementation. Assuming that my implementation is the 'one true' best possible implementation that will ever exist is downright egomaniacal.

If I slack off on maintenance and somebody else creates a fork/derivative to continue development, awesome. I'd rather have my project live on and remain useful to others than deteriorate into obscurity. I won't live forever but the thought that something I created may one day live on beyond me as a legacy to my effort would be an honor.

-----

I'm not a fan of GPL/LGPL because it's a minefield of legal restrictions and once a project is licensed as GPL/LGPL with more than one contributor, it's impossible to change.

I'm not a lawyer, I've wasted more time than I care to admit researching the subversive effects of choosing the GPL/LGPL for a project.

It idea that code I produce may some day be used to subvert future users and/or a creators of derivative works just feels ethically unsound.

-----

"What is clear is that you promote your freedom to rob others of freedom, with the help of state violence."

Not sure how you can justify making such terrible and base assumptions about my character. Launching a barrage of 'ad hominem' attacks doesn't lend strength to whatever cause you think you're fighting here.

From my experiences, the world isn't out to get you. At best it's made up of people trying to make the best with what they have. At worst it's universally indifferent.

[Thomas_Lord]

I'm just taking you at your word. You advocate not to use GPL but to instead use licenses that permit proprietary derivatives. You describe proprietary derivatives as "a right". You therefore advocate for using the coercive power of the state to deny people the freedom to run, study, modify, and share software. Your version of "freedom" involves taking away vital freedoms from others.

re: "Launching a barrage of 'ad hominem' attacks"

Do you mean like your assertion that RMS created the GPL out of spite?