Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   CyberSpook?? (cyberspook@soc.redeyes.site)'s status on Friday, 23-Dec-2022 21:59:37 JST CyberSpook??

   • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
   @lanodan https://inv.riverside.rocks/watch?v=3SHM9NmcNv8
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 23-Dec-2022 21:59:34 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     @lanodan I can't look at sound waves personally, but everything rms says about "open source" is the truth.
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Friday, 23-Dec-2022 21:59:36 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to
     @cyberspook And then look at what Stallman says about Open Source…
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Saturday, 24-Dec-2022 06:34:07 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     GNU/FSF is an inappropriate conflation in itself, which already weakens your opposition as prejudiced rather than reasoned, FWIW
     
     I've found it quite common for someone to assign to such labels a set of ideas one opposes or supports, without necessarily any resemblance to what the label-carriers actually oppose or support. by conflating two separate labels into one, you reinforce the appearance that what drives your stance is prejudice rather than wisdom.
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Saturday, 24-Dec-2022 06:34:09 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to
     @cyberspook Why not just GNU/FSF supporters?
     翠星石 repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     CyberSpook?? (cyberspook@soc.redeyes.site)'s status on Saturday, 24-Dec-2022 06:34:10 JST CyberSpook??

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     FSF supporters are part of it but you're right… I think clearer terms would be "software freedom supporters" and "open-source development model supporters." That's what I mean by "libre software supporters" and "Open Source supporters."
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Saturday, 24-Dec-2022 06:34:12 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to
     @cyberspook Who do you mean by "libre software supporters"?
     
     Because I would define myself as such, just not as a GNU/FSF supporter as I'm critical of it.
     To me as much as GNU/FSF wants to, they do not represent the libre software movement, they can't, it got much bigger than them.
   • Embed this notice
     CyberSpook?? (cyberspook@soc.redeyes.site)'s status on Saturday, 24-Dec-2022 06:34:13 JST CyberSpook??

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     Yes. I get it. But Stallman mainly opposes the official position. And generally, many people who advocate for Open Source also support the official position. Same for libre software supporters. That's why they're generalizations: it's not an attack on people but on a certain mindset. You may not like the general mindset of the libre software supporters. That is fine, it is your choice. But again, Stallman doesn't attack individual people. He doesn't attack the open-source supporters' personal character (something I notice many times when someone attacks the libre software crowd), it's simply the issue of common goals and core organizations (which, again, not everyone may share but that's not what Stallman is talking about). That's it. This is the main difference. Or perhaps you think that Stallman has an issue with how people act? Even if he does, it isn't the core of his critique of the open-source movement.
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Saturday, 24-Dec-2022 06:34:15 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     @cyberspook Please consider asking questions.
     
     >On the other hand, I don’t think that really applies to GNU/FSF.
     
     With this as context:
     > It's a folly to associate communities or organizations with one single person connected to them.
     > A community is always a generalization, not an expression of the individual's motives and uniqueness. It's about consensus, ideological status-quo, spooks if you will.
     
     Point being that GNU/FSF doesn't really cares about real consensus, Stallman typically represents what's at least the official position, where the individual positions end up getting quite lost.
     Or did you forget how non-anarchist organisations work?
     翠星石 repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Saturday, 24-Dec-2022 06:34:17 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to
     @cyberspook You're going completely away from what I was saying.
   • Embed this notice
     CyberSpook?? (cyberspook@soc.redeyes.site)'s status on Saturday, 24-Dec-2022 06:34:18 JST CyberSpook??

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     @lanodan In a way it's like equating all socialists, even egoist ones, as basically Stalinites. Obviously it couldn't be further from the truth. "Socialism" is just an umbrella term, it only denotes vague commonalities. There are all kinds of schisms going on. Same with libre software supporters. Like, aside from egoists vs moralists we have rivalries between Lispers and traditional programmers, we have those who support Codes of Conduct and those who despise them, we have libre software moderates and libre software maximalists, etc., etc.
     
     There is no homogeneity. Never was.
   • Embed this notice
     CyberSpook?? (cyberspook@soc.redeyes.site)'s status on Saturday, 24-Dec-2022 06:34:19 JST CyberSpook??

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     On the other hand, I don’t think that really applies to GNU/FSF.

     >willingly ignoring the egoist telekommunist branch

     Look. None of the communities are exactly homogenous in the first place. Moreover, even if you say “Open Source” you’re not necessarily an open-source advocate (like with Perens). Some people (wrongly) think that saying “Open Source” is less ambiguous but that doesn’t mean they aren’t still libre software supporters. Some libre software supporters may have personal grudges against RMS or FSF. That also doesn’t make them not libre software supporters. Yes, many libre software supporters support RMS and FSF because they have solidarity with them but it isn’t necessarily the case. There’s a lot of gray area but the point is made about the generally accepted ideologies rather than more specific cases. Thinking that either of these communities are homogenous is misguided.

   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Saturday, 24-Dec-2022 06:34:20 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to
     @cyberspook
     > It's a folly to associate communities or organizations with one single person connected to them
     
     For how Open Source is, definitely, as it's not really a cohesive community but more like a loose group of people around a common definition, with a potential core being OSI members.
     On the other hand, I don't think that really applies to GNU/FSF.
   • Embed this notice
     CyberSpook?? (cyberspook@soc.redeyes.site)'s status on Saturday, 24-Dec-2022 06:34:22 JST CyberSpook??

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     @lanodan Stallman does not criticize Perens in particular but the open-source community and OSI. Against Perens he doesn't hold personal grudges, he never expressed his hatred for Perens anywhere ever. It's a folly to associate communities or organizations with one single person connected to them. A community is always a generalization, not an expression of the individual's motives and uniqueness. It's about consensus, ideological status-quo, spooks if you will.
   • Embed this notice
     CyberSpook?? (cyberspook@soc.redeyes.site)'s status on Saturday, 24-Dec-2022 06:34:23 JST CyberSpook??

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     Perens is no longer a part of the OSI, he doesn't like Open Source either. So if you criticize Stallman then might as well criticize Perens as well.
     翠星石 repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Saturday, 24-Dec-2022 06:40:59 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     there's no such thing as FSF branches. FSFLA, FSFE, FSF India, FSF France are all independent organizations, united only by supporting essentially the same ideas promoted by the original FSF. there's no hierarchy, authority, shared funding, no structure or relationship that could be reasonably denoted by "branch"
   • Embed this notice
     CyberSpook?? (cyberspook@soc.redeyes.site)'s status on Saturday, 24-Dec-2022 06:41:00 JST CyberSpook??

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     Ehhhhhhhhhh… That's not really the main thing they support. FSF supports software freedom. They also support software freedom. So they support FSF. It's not that they support FSF and therefore support software freedom.
     
     I do occasionally call them "FSF fans" as opposed to "OSI fans" but… Eh, I dunno, the organization that represents software freedom isn't as important. We just don't have any others that aren't othwr branches of FSF like FSFE and FSFLA. Also maybe EFF but software freedom isn't EFF's main concern. So technically they are GNU/FSF/FSFE/FSFLA/SFC/SFLC/Mozilla/Tor/EFF supporters. But that's a mouthful.
     翠星石 repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Saturday, 24-Dec-2022 07:19:56 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     what do you mean by "larger than"? the comparison hardly even makes sense. GNU is independent from the FSF. the FSF was initially founded to support GNU, to raise funds for it, and to fiscally sponsor it, but GNU is not part of the FSF, and the FSF has taken up many other activities unrelated to GNU. FSF's staff is much smaller than the pool of volunteers that contributes to the GNU project, and there's no expectation that GNU contributors be FSF associate members or vice versa. the comparison seems just misguided, following from a very common misunderstanding as to the relationship between the GNU Project and the FSF
     
     the inability to perceive a difference between entities of different nature, different goals, different members, and different activities just goes to reinforce how prejudiced and misinformed your conflation is
     
     next thing, we may even find out that your gripes with the GNU Project are not even because of things GNU actually did! :-) (that's quite common too, alas, and a symptom of the labeling issue I mentioned earlier)
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Saturday, 24-Dec-2022 07:19:57 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva
     @lxo It's a conflation that the GNU project quite entertains, I'm aware that FSF is larger than GNU.
     But when it comes to criticising how a community acts… I honestly have no idea how I could really do much of a difference between the two *as an outsider*.
     
     And there's been largely enough examples that I've seen firsthand to keep some distance between me and the GNU project. I wouldn't be surprised that there's been other kind of burnt bridges.
     翠星石 repeated this.