FOSS is about freedom, and freedom is about letting people you don't like do things you don't like as well as letting people you like do things you do like.
Personally, I've seen projects claiming to be FOSS that try to dictate who can use their software and how, and I don't think they're really Free Software at all. It's highly restrictive software with a shared source license.
Personally, I've seen projects claiming to be FOSS that try to dictate who can use their software and how, and I don't think they're really Free Software at all. It's highly restrictive software with a shared source license.
There isn't anything that says that a project needs to blindly take every donation and code commit or it's no longer libre, for sure. At the end of the day, FOSS projects require leadership and that leadership does have decisions to make. Especially when the project is providing services besides just writing FOSS software.
That being said, my original point still stands with respect to claiming to be libre but then stacking conditions on top of the use of the software or source code. It might not seem such a problem when you agree with the limitations, but if the shoe was on the other foot and a piece of software required you to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and Savior or agree with the terms of the MAGA movement then the problems with such practices becomes rather clear.
That being said, my original point still stands with respect to claiming to be libre but then stacking conditions on top of the use of the software or source code. It might not seem such a problem when you agree with the limitations, but if the shoe was on the other foot and a piece of software required you to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and Savior or agree with the terms of the MAGA movement then the problems with such practices becomes rather clear.
That's a good point, and it speaks to a reality I've started to understand -- FLOSS projects don't exist in a vacuum. They need to attract users and developers and the like, and so only projects that can survive long-term will survive long-term.
I saw some questions lately about why projects tend to have a dictatorial structure, and the only answer I could come up with is that virtually no projects could start and get up to scale without a benevolent dictator in charge. If another method can work, then it would work, and we'd have those methods in use.
I saw some questions lately about why projects tend to have a dictatorial structure, and the only answer I could come up with is that virtually no projects could start and get up to scale without a benevolent dictator in charge. If another method can work, then it would work, and we'd have those methods in use.
It's interesting the preamble where it was previously called a code of conduct and it was renamed to a code of ethics hints at the sort of backlash I'd expect since the term code of conduct implies teeth that can bite you for not following it. I certainly would have a problem calling software enforcing behavior like that libre.
It sort of reminds me of one of those things that discusses the difference between being a boss and being a leader. A boss points and yells and says this is how you're going to do it or else. A leader tries to exemplify good behavior and present a vision for the future and model it so other people want to follow his lead rather than being forced to follow their lead.
The 4 freedoms and particularly the 0th freedom was what I had in mind for sure.
It sort of reminds me of one of those things that discusses the difference between being a boss and being a leader. A boss points and yells and says this is how you're going to do it or else. A leader tries to exemplify good behavior and present a vision for the future and model it so other people want to follow his lead rather than being forced to follow their lead.
The 4 freedoms and particularly the 0th freedom was what I had in mind for sure.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1