š¾ Archived View for splint.rs āŗ no_floss.gmi captured on 2024-07-09 at 00:11:41. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
ā¬ ļø Previous capture (2024-05-26)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I once met a man who, having talked to some FOSS-enthusiast, felt moved, and told me he was sure to use āfreeā software, but not that āopen sourceā, software. His attempts, of course, would be futile, because the words refer to the same software.
The Free Software Foundation (could they not at least have called themselves the āFoundation for Software Freedomā?) have stated that āfree softwareā does not mean the same as āopen sourceā software, because big, nasty, companies use the term āopen sourceā, to remove the ethical questions about the freedoms of software. Now Iād like to give this remark more attention than in deserves.
Corporations, whatever evils they may commit, can universally communicate well (meaning, they communicate what they want to, with the clarity they wish). When people hear āopen source softwareā, they mostly get that thereās something open about it, and that other software closes the source away in some sense. The term communicates everything it needs to, instantly.
On the other side, āfree softwareā never goes unexplained
free software, and when I say āfreeā, I mean the following thingsā¦
If your explanation needs another explanation, then itās not much of an explanation. We can see the zenith of this confusion in the ugly compromise-word āFLOSSā, meaning āfree, libre, open source, softwareā.
So now we have:
Iād rather just the āossā, an acronym so awkward, nobody will ever use it, which then forces people to say what they mean.
Richard Stallmanās a good Philosopher, but heās a bad salesman, and clearly not cut out for the world of marketing.