I am drawn more and more towards simply "communal software". It is simple and to the point without needing to bring in a lot of loaded political baggage. Sure capitalists might fund some of it, but I think it would be significantly more difficult for capitalists to co-opt "communal software" than the nebulous "open source" which has had its meaning intentionally diluted and stretched to absurdity.
Here is a first draft to articulate what a communal software movement could be. Let's continue the discussion on Codeberg: https://codeberg.org/CommunalSoftware/website/pulls/1
"Towards A Communal Software Movement" is now online! What do *you* think about it?
FWIW, I asked my friends what they thought "software libre" meant in Spanish. To my surprise, they talked about getting the software for no cost without getting in trouble. So I think that "libre" isn't even a great term in Spanish. IMO emphasizing individual liberties misses the point just as emphasizing practical advantages or zero cost miss the point. The point is people working *together* to meet their own needs.
I finally got around to watching all of Revolution OS last night. That made it very clear that pushing the term "open source" really was about emphasizing compatibility with capitalism. Bruce Perens repeatedly talks about venture capitalists' reactions.
Here is Christine Peterson's story of how she came up with the term "open source": https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software
It's very interesting that "cooperatively developed" software was discussed as an option for a new term in that same meeting but "open source" was favored by the group. I am not sure why "cooperatively developed software" was not favored by the group, but Eric Raymond's comment says that "open source" was "perfect for our propaganda needs - ideologically neutral".
FWIW, Christine Peterson did not invent the term "open source". Caldera was using it in 1996 and possibly a little earlier. I believe that Christine Peterson was not aware of Caldera's use of the term and she likely thought of it independently. Caldera's motivation for using the term seems to be the same as the group discussion that lead to the start of the OSI, namely rebranding "free software" with a term that capitalists could accommodate.
@be Tim O'Reilly often gets omitted from this open source origin story, but he had a huge part in it. He was the one funding the conferences and the one who gave OSI all of the megaphones to broadcast "open source".
@JordiGH 'O’Reilly’s PR genius lay in having almost everyone confuse the means and the ends of the free software movement. Since licenses were obsolete, the argument went, software developers could pretty much disregard the ends of Stallman’s project (i.e., its focus on user rights and freedoms) as well. Many developers ... stopped thinking about broader moral issues that would have remained central'
@be Yeah. Although i kind of wonder if there isn't some grandiloquent hyperbole here. I don't think everyone really cared about software freedom and stopped when O'Reilly started doing his PR work.
@JordiGH No, but they were overshadowed by the new people, money, and marketing hype of "open source".
@JordiGH Here is Eric Raymond praising Ayn Rand: "Perhaps I would, if Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche and Ayn Rand had not already done an entirely competent job (whatever their other failings) of deconstructing `altruism' into unacknowledged kinds of self-interest."
Why have we given this guy's ideas a platform? 🙃
@be The phrases existed, in scattered use, inconsistently applied, with dubious meaning and sometimes the phrase appear in what doesn't seem to be about source. Just like if the phrase "red fruit fly" appears it doesn't meant that people are talking about red fruit, sometimes people are talking about "open source code" in some of those instances without meaning "open source".
We wouldn't all be saying "open source" if it weren't for OSI. They're the ones that made us all say it.
@JordiGH Yes, and OSI's ideas have never fully defined the term. Its lack of inherent clarity makes it a perfect capitalist buzzword (buzzphrase?) that is trivially easy to coopt and conflate with unrelated things for marketing purposes. For example, consider GitLab calling itself an "open core company": https://about.gitlab.com/company/
They could not do that without the meaninglessness of the "open" buzzword. How absurd would "cooperative core" sound?
No person nor organization has the authority to unilaterally define what a term means. That's not to say the OSI's criteria don't have value, but IMO it's absurd to say that people using the term "open source" differently are incorrect. They're not incorrect, they're using a meaning that isn't consistent with the OSI, and that's the OSI's fault for using such a vague term.
You're wearing clothes that designers chose for you. There are ramifications that echo through culture because a select few want them to proliferate.
Regardless of how most people use it now, "open source" wasn't our idea. It was OSI's idea to make us say it. They did such a good job at picking a term that sounds so natural, that we think it's our idea.
However, "open code" doesn't appear in news headlines as often. We don't talk about the open code philosophy. We don't talk about open code licences. We don't talk about open code hardware or open code artwork or open code robotics.
We use the phrase "open source" in all those instances. Because of OSI.
Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.