For me F/LOSS is a perfect example of how anarchist philosophy let’s perfect be the enemy of good; practical solutions become as bad as no solution.
Most end users are just happy there’s a ton of free, quality code to run and study. Admittedly that’s only the case because of the FSF, but I think they should just accept that “open source” is a perfectly good term to describe software that is free and you can download the source.
Everything else is licensing nuances e.g, politics
The idea of Free Software, at its most extreme, exists as a useful endpoint of an "Overton Window" for software. Which is to say, all software benefits from its existence even if they don't e.g. sign on to the GPL. You're forced to consider it as a possibility.
Without it, we'd probably think of "Open Source" as the most "open" software can be -- which, as OP proves, is quite wrong and nebulous.
No I have it right, because most people stop listening when you talk about more abstract “freedom” when what they’ve got is literally (the good) and abstractly (the implementation) free. I get it’s an Overton window and admitted they moved it. However they’ve (FSF) failed to adapt to the current times and branch from there.
I think you're missing the possibility (and unfortunately, I would say the inevitability) of backsliding. I don't think we need anything adapting as near as much as we need people to "hold the line" or "stop loss."
For me, the perfect concrete case of this was here reading about youtube-dl being removed for Github. It became clear to me that a not-insignificant number of professionals in this space absolutely equated "deleted from Github" as "literally gone forever such that no one could have it again."
People will forget about the idea of free software and taking a copy of the code home with you as an important idea to be preserved, unless the FSF et al remain.
The minds behind the FSF were very much influenced by anarchist philosophy. The implementation uses the state because anarchism isn’t practical. As I said, they’ve been convinced the movement has failed since it’s inception and that we live in the dystopia they envisioned.
Despite their mission having been an overwhelming success.
Comments
For me F/LOSS is a perfect example of how anarchist philosophy let’s perfect be the enemy of good; practical solutions become as bad as no solution.
Most end users are just happy there’s a ton of free, quality code to run and study. Admittedly that’s only the case because of the FSF, but I think they should just accept that “open source” is a perfectly good term to describe software that is free and you can download the source.
Everything else is licensing nuances e.g, politics
I think you have it exactly wrong.
The idea of Free Software, at its most extreme, exists as a useful endpoint of an "Overton Window" for software. Which is to say, all software benefits from its existence even if they don't e.g. sign on to the GPL. You're forced to consider it as a possibility.
Without it, we'd probably think of "Open Source" as the most "open" software can be -- which, as OP proves, is quite wrong and nebulous.
No I have it right, because most people stop listening when you talk about more abstract “freedom” when what they’ve got is literally (the good) and abstractly (the implementation) free. I get it’s an Overton window and admitted they moved it. However they’ve (FSF) failed to adapt to the current times and branch from there.
I think you're missing the possibility (and unfortunately, I would say the inevitability) of backsliding. I don't think we need anything adapting as near as much as we need people to "hold the line" or "stop loss."
For me, the perfect concrete case of this was here reading about youtube-dl being removed for Github. It became clear to me that a not-insignificant number of professionals in this space absolutely equated "deleted from Github" as "literally gone forever such that no one could have it again."
People will forget about the idea of free software and taking a copy of the code home with you as an important idea to be preserved, unless the FSF et al remain.
FLOSS is not an anarchist philosophy, since it relies on the state for enforcement.
The minds behind the FSF were very much influenced by anarchist philosophy. The implementation uses the state because anarchism isn’t practical. As I said, they’ve been convinced the movement has failed since it’s inception and that we live in the dystopia they envisioned.
Despite their mission having been an overwhelming success.