On 11/17/2017 01:54 PM, Paul Boddie wrote:
Open source is not right wing, and free software is not left wing. Nobody is saying that the software is one thing or the other. But I would argue that people with a neoliberal perspective are unlikely to talk about "Free Software": they will instead talk about "open source" because, as others have said, it focuses on the properties of the product instead of any ethical motivations for giving the product those properties. And such ethical motivations do not sit well with exploitative corporate practices that deny users control over the software.
I mostly agree with this and with Stallman's position on the words.
As someone who works for a self-described "open source" company, I'd describe "open source" as a development methodology and a business model.
The development model is the well-known way of working in communities, with open projects and voluntary contributions with or without corporate support which have given us so many projects - Linux, Plone, Python, LibreOffice, really many more than I can mention.
The business model is about clients being able to share implementations and not paying for the same work several times over. If client A want a system, we can build if for them for $A €. If client B wants the same system, they can get it for the price of delivery + the price of their own customizations, for $B €, with (normally) $B << $A. And if A wants B's customizations, they can get it with the next upgrade, which is likely a part of their service agreement. So the business model is basically that of being more attractive to customers because they can share the costs and avoid lock-in, because they have a right to the code.
Anyway, that's the business model that Magenta works with. Most of our "open source" products are *not* made as community projects. This is not because of a lack of will, it's just that a) clients don't pay for community building and b) most people don't notice our repositories enough to send patches.
"Free software" is a political agenda to empower users.
So, to explain what "open source" is and why it's good, you need to explain why a methodology works well, and why the business model is attractive for clients.
To explain what "free software" is, you need to explain a political agenda that's all about empowering users.
Some people find it embarassing to have to explain a leftist- or libertarian-sounding political agenda in a business meeting.
But they shouldn't: The political agenda is really why it's so important. If it was only a question of getting better software, as Stallman argues, we might as well get ourselves a Mac already.