'Seven These on the and the Becoming of FLOSS':

Originally published in 'The Eternal Network: The Ends and Becomings of Network Culture', edited by and , and published by the Institute of Network Cultures.

Some intriguing thoughts (and nice to be referenced), but I found the seventh section very frustrating. The authors seem to *think* they are discussing both "free software" and "open source", but they are actually only talking about discourse and completely missing the critique of it made by activists:

"... discussions around FLOSS licensing have remained locked in a tiresome comparison between free software’s emphasis on user ethics versus the open source approach based on economics ... in both cases, the foundational liberal drive is deeply rooted in a Western context that over the past few decades has favored individual freedom in the form of liberalism and libertarianism at the expense of equality and care."


Ironically the risk of the communal care motives of the movement being obscured by the techno-economic utilitarianism of open source discourse is a core part of that critique.

Got an example of "the communal care motives of the FreeSoftware movement"?

(Or, what did you mean by that phrase?)

@bhaugen look no further than the Free Software Definition, which talks about software freedom being important so people can help others.

* Freedom 2: "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others"

* Freedom 3: "The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes."

Quotes from:

@bhaugen or from the same page:

> The free software movement campaigns to win for the users of computing the freedom that comes from free software

Note that the focus is put on empowering software users - the computer-using members of the general public - not on empowering individual developers (whether humans or companies), which tends to be the pitch of open source discourse, and particularly the advocates of pushover ("permissive") licenses.

I understand all that, and now I understand what you meant, but "communal care" did not seem like an apt description of those campaigns....that's not an argument, I just didn't get it.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!