Seriously, Free Software vs. Open Source debate is important and all that, but if we do not recognize that these philosophies differ in details -- details which *are important*, but remain details! -- we are just letting ourselves get divided.

And that's all that's all the Microzon Facegoopple needs.

Don't feed the monster.

@rysiek I understand your concerns.

But what you call details are basically every dimension that describes these phenomena except for the legal one!

Indeed you can easily see how (!!!), and are top contributors and leaders in several projects!

Do you really think they are doing so as a philanthropic endeavour?

They are pushing their own agenda and their own culture and ethics to users and devs, nerd-washed through this ambiguity!

They are fooling us!

@Shamar I do not consider Microzon Facegoopple to be a part of the Open Source movement. The Open Source movement is being co-opted by them. The Open Source movement can consider if they're okay with it and take action.

Still, the main front is between FLOSS and proprietary bullcrap. If we let ourselves get divided, we become weaker.

For me the OSS movement was always about a better way of working, sharing output to multiply results. It was also about that model crushing proprietary development.

I don't think you can "co-opt" that. The fact that MS/amz/goog/FB do so much open development, providing FLOSS that underpins SO MANY other projects, means that we won. Only dinosaurs do proprietary anymore.

What is there to co-opt? To what end?

@ohthehugemanatee @Shamar the business model has moved. Facebook might be running a lot of FLOSS on the server but that does not translate to preserving the freedoms of their users. Instead of being locked on the desktop, they're locked in the cloud. Same with Google, same with Microsoft, etc.

Without copyleft there is an imbalance: they can use OSS tools, but we cannot use their proprietary tools. Combine that with their budgets and you have a recipe for keeping users locked in walled gardens.

That's the difference between Free/Libre and Open Source. Are you saying that the problem is MS and Co are only open source, not Libre? Because that charge can be leveled against a lot of (IMO good) OSS.

Sidebar: do you think that it's facebook's proprietary code that creates the walled garden? What about chrome, then?

@ohthehugemanatee @Shamar I think saying it's open-source's fault that corporate behemoths abuse the lack of copyleft in OSS licenses is no different from blaming my octogenarian grandmother for forgetting to lock the door and getting burgled.

Would locking the door stop the burglary and save everyone's time and money? Sure.

Was it my grandma's fault? No, I will blame the burglars.

Victim-blaming is never a good idea. And does not help.

@ohthehugemanatee @Shamar point is: MS, Google, and Facebook, and others, figured out a business model that enables them to use open-source software to still limit users and lock them in walled gardens. They leverage OSS to deny users the freedoms OSS was supposed to guarantee.

And this is done with cold, calculating premeditation. This is not something that "happened", it's what these companies consciously aim to do. Using OSS as a fig leaf for their monopolistic practices, diluting the term.

@ohthehugemanatee @Shamar and just as I hope I can convince my grandma to finally install a latch so that she doesn't get burgled anymore, I hope many OSS projects will switch to copyleft licenses so that they won't get abused by Microzon Facegoopple anymore.

But, to circle back to the start of this thread, just as shouting at my grandma and blaming her will not help, antagonizing OSS will also not help.

@ohthehugemanatee and if you have any doubts about how MS treats OSS, this thread might be pretty enlightening:

Content warning: contains examples of MS shitty behaviour towards FLOSS (not just OSS).


I still see this as a difference between copyleft and open source. Large corps have always profited from OS code, since even before the term "open source" existed. Eg Parts of BSD's MIT-licensed X made it into multiple Unixes and early vers of Windows.

This is old news and not a problem, according to the people who still license their software this way. (Including Microsoft! Most MS contributions are MIT licensed) /1

@rysiek @Wolf480pl

@Shamar @rysiek @Wolf480pl
The free software movement is different, it has an ideological tenet behind it. But it doesn't prohibit use for profit. There's nothing saying you shouldn't use Drupal (GPL licensed) for profit. In fact the founder does it himself, and encouraged the commercial ecosystem.

So I hear a complaint that OS and free software are used to create walled gardens. Which is lame, but old news, and not a problem according to the projects. /2

@Shamar @rysiek @Wolf480pl
I also think you're confused about how these companies engage with open source. Facebook doesn't just "run" OSS; they wrote and released the most popular JS framework out there (reactjs), a legitimately game changing data store abstraction (graphql), and oh yeah they rewrote PHP to be a modern, fast language. Everyone ELSE is profiting from their work. And what is Microsoft's walled garden based on OSS? Azure? Genuinely curious. /3

@Shamar @Wolf480pl @rysiek @ohthehugemanatee React is delivered to users via FB cdn? last time I checked the js ecosystem was no longer based around cdns, but rather around baking all dependencies into a single incoherent js file
@rysiek And if she did it on purpose to give people a freedom to freely walk through any house :-)?

@xrevan86 then I would point out to her that there are organized groups there abusing this freedom to the detriment of everyone else.

And if she's so inclined she can donate the house to a community that will take care to give people the freedom without enabling the abuse.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!