Anyone who says the #Linux community as a whole doesn't care about #SoftwareFreedom has likely fallen into an overly hierarchical way of thinking.
I've had hundreds of conversations with RMS about the many Linux developers who support software freedom. It always end with RMS dismissively saying “if they don't say GNU/Linux & say ‘open source’, they are working against #GNU.”
This is farcical, & ego-driven, & prioritizes form over function & terminology over policy.
Cc: @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz @eruwero@ieji.de
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz I didn't say the #Linux community doesn't care about #SoftwareFreedom and it wouldn't make any sense. Any generalization like this is counterproductive and will only split a community that is small enough already.
(This turned out longer than I wanted unfortunately, sorry. But I think a real discussion about this is important and maybe someone will want to read it.) [1/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz First of all, I'm not arguing for RMS. I've never met him, only read a few of his texts and some things about his controversial comments that got him to resign from the FSF. This is in no way about him, from my perspective (apart from some of his ideas being present). I don't support the person RMS, but I do support the values of the movement he helped start [2/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz What I am trying to say is that words do matter (as you mentioned). There is a reason why most big tech companies support #OpenSource software in some way, and I would argue it is not because of any #freedom they want the users of their software to have, but simply because it can make a lot of sense to develop software openly. It can lead to better quality and there are a lot of motivated skilled people who might contribute for free if they think the software is useful. [3/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz The companies can still add proprietary extensions or only make part of the software open source or make the software rely on proprietary services or whatever other ways there are to suck money or data out of it and enshittify it. [4/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz So when I say the use of #OpenSource can be problematic, I am not claiming that all people who use the term do not support #SoftwareFreedom, but that it can be and is misused to "openwash" #bigtech companies. It makes it easy for companies to turn the discussion away from software freedom to simply open source development and the benefits of that for everyone, when it's obviously primarily for their benefit. [5/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz When I mentioned distributions I was talking about the big ones like #Ubuntu, their website is full of logos of multi-billion-dollar companies. #OpenSource is mentioned 14 times, but it doesn't even mention the word free, let alone freedom (or #GNU of course, even though it admits to be "more than #Linux"). I'm not even claiming that they don't care about #SoftwareFreedom, but it doesn't seem to be a priority. [6/8]
@eruwero@ieji.de that is mostly bad will on your part.
https://ubuntu.com/about
«The mission for Ubuntu is both social and economic. First, we deliver the worlds free software, freely, to everybody on the same terms.»
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz And I don't have anything against Linux, it's great software and I use it every day. But I have yet to hear a good argument for (exclusively) using the name of the kernel to represent a huge family of operating systems. MacOS/OS X is also not called Darwin or XNU (apparently that's the name of the kernel), for example. I'm not saying everyone who uses it this way is wrong but the arguments for it that I know are not convincing, given the history of free operating systems.[7/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz I don't get why discussions about terminology turn into weird accusations against each other. The terminology is not the most important thing to talk about, but it is an indication of the underlying values and goals, and those are definitely important. I tried to argue why it is important to think about the different implications of #FreeSoftware and #OpenSource, not that one term is "better". Both are valid, but they focus on different things, and this is IMO important. [8/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz I don't get why discussions about terminology turn into weird accusations against each other. The terminology is not the most important thing to talk about, but it is an indication of the underlying values and goals, and those are definitely important. I tried to argue why it is important to think about the different implications of #FreeSoftware and #OpenSource, not that one term is "better". Both are valid, but they focus on different things, and this is IMO important. [8/8]
@eruwero@ieji.de @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz
@pluralistic@mamot.fr recently did a column on the divide between “free software” and “open source software”
one of his closing points: out of all the effort put into licenses, some of that needs to be diverted towards creating a workable (and usable) ethical software license that takes into account the world we’re actually living in where corporations treat open source like unpaid interns
https://pluralistic.net/2025/07/14/pole-star/
@eruwero@ieji.de @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz
@pluralistic@mamot.fr recently did a column on the divide between “free software” and “open source software”
one of his closing points: out of all the effort put into licenses, some of that needs to be diverted towards creating a workable (and usable) ethical software license that takes into account the world we’re actually living in where corporations treat open source like unpaid interns
https://pluralistic.net/2025/07/14/pole-star/
@cerement@social.targaryen.house @eruwero@ieji.de @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz @pluralistic@mamot.fr it's a good idea to keep discussing on ethics and foss/fosh . I find it very difficult to comprehend that foss software is used in warfare and is killing people. But adding no military usage in a license would violate the four freedoms
@cerement@social.targaryen.house @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz @pluralistic@mamot.fr Thank you, that's a great article
@cerement@social.targaryen.house @eruwero@ieji.de
Cooption has definitely occurred. It didn't happen because some said “open source” &/or called a system that had both #GNU & #Linux in it “a Linux-based system”.
It happened mostly because activists from all sides didn't anticipate the capitalist plans to exploit the community.
Many of us, including myself for a while, were more worried about the words than the policy while that was happening.
#Copyleft needs saving. I'm focused on that.
Cc: @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz @pluralistic@mamot.fr
@os_sci@mastodon.social I guess not all problems can be solved with licenses. Given how major militaries disregard international law, I don't think they care too much about copyright infringement. Especially if they can just keep it "top secret" for a long time.
But it's again an argument for copyleft I think, because at least in principle you can force them to open up the software. And it might be possible to target companies selling military equipment or software.
@cerement@social.targaryen.house @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz @pluralistic@mamot.fr
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @cerement@social.targaryen.house @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz @pluralistic@mamot.fr It's more a symptom than a cause IMO.
Thank you for your work, it's important
Bradley M. Kühn
