[glubGlub]

"Libre software" and FLOSS immediately sound politicized to my ear.

As in, such projects carry baggage, in the form of conflict and infighting among developers, and one can expect irritating pedantry when discussing use and preferences.

Usually, you'll encounter something akin to fanatical fans, expressing highly opinionated views about minor details. Sometimes it's because lawyers have been involved. It's not necessarily toxic, but often reflects splintered cellular activity, among groups seeking to distinguish themselves from one another for some reason.

[dandelion_lover]

>"Libre software" and FLOSS immediately sound politicized to my ear.

They are, because pursuing your rights is a political move.

"Free software is a political movement; open source is a development model." — Richard Stallman [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#cite_note-95

>Usually, you'll encounter something akin to fanatical fans <...>

As in any fight for freedom there are all kinds of people: those who do not understand, those who pretend they do not understand, those who do not know why they are fighting, and so on. No one of them defines the goal of the fight though.

[waaiermat]

The early Linux movement that later became part of the Open Source movement was certainly also political. Stallman was actually one of the heroes of that movement, which he apparently didn't realize. The difference was strategy. The FSF wanted to ideologically educate and convert people while most people in the Linux movement were focused on the number of users. The more users the more influence. Facts on the ground instead of ideology. History has proven them right.

[simondedalus]

you can't be neutral on a moving train.