It's just wrong to say that that "there is no FOSS" as if you were correcting someone's spelling mistake. The debate about the direction of open source/Libre software is too important to be treated in the way you chose for your post.
He has done much for the movement and this isn't meant to denigrate him. It's just that there was free software proponents before him and he's just the famous one. I'm sure Wikipedia has an article on the history of free software. It should go back at least as far as SHARE, from the 1950s, as I recall.
Again, this isn't meant to denigrate RMS, or his work. He's a nice enough fellow. In fact, we went to school together. This is just a bit of a lead for those who wish to look deeper.
Actually, I'll get you a link.
Scolding on tone aside, the comment by RomanPushkin is also correct:
> FYI, there is no FOSS -- that expression is a misunderstanding. There is the free (libre) software movement, and there is the open source non-movement: two different viewpoints based on different values.
This is very much the literal truth at least in my little world. Stallman's vision and response (the GNU license/weapon) are very much the "alpha and omega" of Free Software. In contrast, the entire "Open Source" non-movement either doesn't get it or doesn't care. From the POV of a free software true believer (Hello there!) there is no point to Open Source.
The key differentiator between open source and free software is ideological. If you value ideology over pragmatism, then I'd see your point, otherwise it's kind of a misguided statement.
There's nothing in the ideals of free software that prevents what the Caddy authors have done. Stallman has made it clear time and time again that the 'free' in free software is a matter of liberty rather than price. The freedom to charge money for free software has been made very clear to anyone paying attention. Here's an article from the GNU Project website about selling free software:
> If you value ideology over pragmatism
That laden false dichotomy died a long time ago. At best, one can speak of "short term pragmatism" vs "long term pragmatism".
In general yes, but not in this case.
There's very little practical difference between free software and open source. Both have access to source code and freedom to distribute/modify/use that source code at their core. For the most part, the rules built up around open source and free software only have a practical impact on how it interacts with non-free software. So for example, having binary blobs in the Linux kernel. Note that whilst the Linux kernel is GPL2, it's still run as an open source project. Regardless of whether a project uses a free software licence, it's the ideological approach to non-free software that splits free software and open source.
You could argue that binary blobs in the Linux kernel are a case that can't be described as long term pragmatism, but what's the alternative? That the device without a free driver goes unused until it has one. It could be argued that the existence of binary-only driver releases hold back the long term goals of free software if they take away the desire to write free software drivers, but we can see that people still want free software drivers regardless. Nouveau is a good example, it's a project that's been going for years with almost nonexistent assistance from NVIDIA, and has never matched the performance of the closed source NVIDIA drivers, but people still continue developing it despite the obstacles, and people continue using it despite the lower performance. If short term pragmatism damaged long term pragmatism then projects like Nouveau most likely wouldn't exist, as it's hard to argue against the fact that the NVIDIA closed-source drivers are the superior choice in the short term.
> but what's the alternative?
The alternative is not to use the device, and/or find a replacement.
That may sound fairly dogmatic, but over the course of a decade or so, its pragmatic value becomes more apparent. If a piece of hardware works with free drivers, it will likely continue working until the magic smoke escapes. With binary blobs this is not a given, as various kernel upgrades (or even user land changes) might break the environment.
I realise that people no longer count the usability of their hardware in decades, but still, there is immense practical value in knowing that the thing you set up to work once will continue doing so allowing you to focus on the task you set it up for without requiring your attention.
This, of course, goes against the use case of chasing for example (graphical) performance through the use of proprietary drivers, but that raises the question of what that performance is used for, and whether these use cases are inherently pragmatic (catering to the newest generation of desktop environments, etc. It might be a good argument that these DE increase productivity for the user, but still, the "pragmatic" argument doesn't fall automatically to one side here).
On a larger collective scale, the long term pragmatic effects of using free drivers over proprietary drivers are not really disputed I think.
As a less technical example (because OS en FS are, as you mentioned, almost indistinguishable there):
Getting off FB is a recurring theme here on HN. Free Software values have always led me to eschew that particular site at the expense of social convenience. As I now read these various stories, I can safely conclude for myself that I indeed made the long term pragmatic choice.
Open Source here doesn't really have anything to say on the matter, where Free Software has always recognised sofware as a social institution as well as a practical tool. As such, it might be easier to recognise any long term detrimental social effects resulting in a long term pragmatic approach for individuals.
I very much disagree. There is a pragmatic difference. The ideology of capital-F Free Software derives from a pragmatic goal.
RMS wanted to fix a printer.
Today, we live in a world where the computers in our cars have been programmed to lie to us about the hardware they control. (Not to mention the lies were in service of poisoning the air for personal gain.)
RMS designed the GPL as a weapon against these people.
"Open Source" at best weakens this tool, and as we've seen today, spreads confusion.
How does it spread confusion? How does it weaken free software? Open source and free software are just two different approaches to collaborative software development. There's no confusion in my mind about the benefits they both offer.
As for the GPL as a weapon, there's a reason why GPL is falling out of favour. If open source did not exist, most companies simply wouldn't bother sharing source code. How would that help you?
That is the confusion. They are not. The fact that you think so is exactly the confusion I'm complaining about.
GPL is a fire extinguisher, "Open Source" is a bottle of seltzer water, they are not two different approaches to fire-fighting.
It doesn't matter to me how many companies choose to be on fire I still do not want to burn with them.
It seems to me that your general argument appears to be based on the GPL being hostile to companies by design. Is that a fair summary?
A business model based on providing software and keeping it secret is fundamentally anti-social and stupid. This is even before we encounter things like cars that lie about their emissions, still at the stage where you can't repair your own tractor.
"RMS designed the GPL as a weapon against these people."
""Open Source" at best weakens this tool"
Weakens in what way?
If you are really curious and want to know more it's there.
I'm out.
> "The key differentiator between open source and free software is ideological."
You said...
> "I very much disagree."
You then explain your position with a link that says...
> "The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a typical example.
For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free software."
In other words, you link to an article that spells out in plain English that the difference is ideological. The approach to software is almost the same, but the reasons behind it differ. That's an ideological difference.
> There's nothing in the ideals of free software that prevents what the Caddy authors have done.
You're right. By coincidence, I had just gone to look at caddy after the announcement was made, which I missed, and I confess, the header in the binary turned me off for reasons I can't quite articulate. It hurt my feels a little. Some how it felt wrong.
Still, the folks who flipped out and flipped the table are out of line, in my opinion.
You're absolutely correct about selling Free software. I wish more people did it. Matt Holt and co. should get money for their hard work. I'm tooling up a thing right now and I'll probably use and pay for Caddy.
Now that they removed the header that decision is much easier for me personally, but my emotional response wasn't due to a violation of Free Software principles (after all you could compile your own binary!) It had more to due with squishy, unquantifiable things that don't make a lot of sense when you dredge them up and look at them in the light of day.
More like "is often hostile to it" and "was largely created to undermine it."