Open source: What are missing?

9 replies [Last post]
gd_scania
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2017

Like Richard Stallman and his GNU and FSF heavy works, I have also researched for what are missing from the keyword "open source", i can tell here first, we will have only freedom of developments like derivatives and packaging, and freedoms hacking and testing what else are missing, but honestly our security "might" be most likely incurred and our privacy needs to be almost always broken, for the daily practice esp you are not a developer, a hacker, or a tester "nonfree" Linux and BSD distro are very often not a good idea.
What will be your furthermore views for what are missing in "open source" in an operating system which is not under an 100% free kernel?

Magic Banana

I am a member!

Offline
Joined: 07/24/2010

*User* (not developer) freedoms are missing from "open source" talks. They will never be added! You seem to believe that "open source" preexists "free software". It is the other way around: fifteen years *after* RMS started the Free Software movement, the term "open source" was coined... to specifically *not* talk about user freedoms and *not* criticize proprietary software developers.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html (especially the she section "Fear of Freedom") explains it well. Stallman being the author of that text, you may believe that it is biased. It is not: it is what really happened and "open source" proponents do not say otherwise. Read http://producingoss.com/en/introduction.html#free-vs-open-source (a section in the book "Producing Open Source Software"), for instance.

From a practical (rather than philosophical) point of view, "free" and "open source" are almost identical (but philosophy matters!): there are a couple of obscure licenses that the OSI deems "open source" but that the FSF does not accept (for being unclear).

"Security" and "privacy" are features (like stability, accessibility, internationalization, user-friendliness, etc.). User freedoms are more fundamental than that. They do not depend on what the program does but on the rules (the license) that govern its use, modification and redistribution.

gd_scania
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2017

Yes the "open source" summits are focused too much to software pro, and SOFTWARE LAYPEOPLE (in contrast to my term "software pro", and better for your term "users not also being developers") are quite unwelcome to those summits. Unlike us, the open source communities (regardless online forums or offline summits) treat freedoms of software laypeople for almost nothing.
Debian, the system itself is software laypeople friendly but its forums and BugZilla are software laypeople unfriendly.

lap4fsf
Offline
Joined: 10/12/2014

Open source is a development model. Their priority is the production of technically superior software(?) that the user(?) can leverage upon.

In the process of making the software more powerful(?), it is not(?) a sin in the open source camp to add bits of proprietary software, including long strings of numbers (Non-free binary blobs, to be specific.) in its kernel, Linux.

They emphasize the convenience(?) the user(?) gets with such practice.

Such open source software is in fact, depriving its users their fundamental human rights of freedom of computing and freedom of privacy.

But the sad fact is that even free software projects like VLC media player developed by VideoLAN project uses the term open source in their official website and in their user manuals; They need to learn why open source is **** NOT **** a solution to the problems posed by proprietary software.

chaosmonk

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Offline
Joined: 07/07/2017

Ironically, the reason I know about the free software movement at all is because the VideoLAN forum guidelines page links to this page: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

lap4fsf
Offline
Joined: 10/12/2014

Ironically, the reason I know about the free software movement at all is because the VideoLAN forum guidelines page links to this page: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

From the hyperlink that you referenced here;

Open Source?
Another group uses the term “open source” to mean something close (but not identical) to “free software”. We prefer the term “free software” because, once you have heard that it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The word “open” never refers to freedom.

They clearly missed this important distinction between free software and open source software.

Probably they wanted to outreach to greater audience to popularize their project, which I don't think is something wrong.

gd_scania
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2017

https://trisquel.info/en/forum/stallman-linux-action-show
‘‘Open source’’ is the developments and distributions model for free software of scripts and packaging systems and apps and desktops, but if ‘‘open source’’ operating systems are shipped with nonfree compoments it WONT be free software anymore,
Just like what our RMS has enlighted and warned us. So if available I need to be the new leader for our FSF and our GNU which are now still held under him, but he is no longer young and I am just aged 22 within my full available hours, and I am from the East but a majorities of the Easterns are clueless to free software, even open source.
I am here to ask for advices establishing the world-wide initial free software company, whose Libre build system proudly powered under Linux-libre and LibertyBSD kernels, supporting Parabola and Hyperbola (pacman templates), Uruk (urpmi templates), Trisquel, gNewSense, FreeSH (Debian templates), LibertyBSD (BSD templates), to have practicing RMS’s GNU/Enterprise advocations.

chaosmonk

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Offline
Joined: 07/07/2017

I agree. My point was that they are clearly aware of the distinction and choosing to obfuscate it, probably, as you say, to help popularize the project. However, if their project was less popular I might never have come across that link and learned of the distinction myself.

gd_scania
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2017

To popularize EVERY free systems, esp Parabola, not just Trisquel, the rest are Uruk, gNewSense, LibertyBSD, Hyperbola.
A post-modern wake is needed which you are willing (need) to understand what free systems are, nonfreeware are out-fashioned at post-modern.

ADFENO
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2012

Also, the "open source"-side is literally a mess.

If you know the concept of "greenwashing", then I would like to
introduce you to "openwashing". What it means depends on your position
here. I'll detail this in future paragraphs.

Just for a start: it's important to note that Open Source Initiative's
Open Source Definition ([1][2]) doesn't address Restricted Boot and other
digital handcuffs.

Besides, some people in "open source" will:

- favor weak copyleft or even lax/permissive licenses;

- consider strong copyleft licenses just as lax/permissive --- by not
enforcing them in their projects;

- offer alternative "editions" of the project's product --- one
"community" and other "enterprise";

- enforce the license too aggressively againts the derivative projects
--- by going directly to litigations in courts, using the "community"
+ "enterprise" combination to influence users of the "community"
edition to use the other or other bad things.

All of the points given above are based on [3][4][5].

Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, the Open Source Definition only
addressess functional data. Other things such as non-functional data,
service as a software substitute, computers for voting, the need for
fostering and providing free/libre software to the public (which is
beyond "usage"), all of these are not addressed by that.

For the sake of clarity, it's important to note that the free/libre
software movement has three distinct ways to address non-functional
data. In the "individual software" level, it's considered enough if they
are at least unlimitedly shareable (which can be assumed from the
numerous documentatio in gnu.org and also considering [2]); in the
"free/libre distributions", they must be at least unlimitedly shareable
and sellable --- so the software that don't fit in are left out ---
(this is defined in [6]); and third: there is also a related effort
called free/libre culture movement, which applies and requires the same
set of freedoms to non-functional data, this also includes complete
corresponding source files, according to the Definition of Free Cultural
Works ([7]). The third approach is optional, it only complements the
other two and is left for each software or distribution project to
decide on which one to follow.

Finally, for those in favor of free/libre software, "openwashing"
extends to the entire "open source"; while for those in favor of "open
source" would consider "openwashing" as a distortion of requirements set
forth by the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition.

[1] https://opensource.org/docs/osd (under CC BY 4.0).

[2] http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/2015-10-24--rms--free-software-and-your-freedom--seagl--speech.ogv (under CC BY-SA 4.0).

[3] https://sfconservancy.org/videos/2015-01-15_Bradley-Kuhn_Future-of-Copyleft_LCA-2015.webm (under CC BY-SA 4.0).

[4] https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/copyleft-for-the-next-decade-a-comprehensive-plan/ (under CC BY-SA 4.0).

[5] https://video.fosdem.org/2017/Janson/copyleft_defense.vp8.webm (under CC BY-SA 4.0).

[6] https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html (under CC BY-ND 4.0).

[7] https://freedomdefined.org/Definition (under CC BY 2.5).

name at domain writes:

> Like Richard Stallman and his GNU and FSF heavy works, I have also
> researched for what are missing from the keyword "open source", i can
> tell here first, we will have only freedom of developments like
> derivatives and packaging, and freedoms hacking and testing what else
> are missing, but honestly our security "might" be most likely incurred
> and our privacy needs to be almost always broken, for the daily
> practice esp you are not a developer, a hacker, or a tester "nonfree"
> Linux and BSD distro are very often not a good idea.
> What will be your furthermore views for what are missing in "open
> source" in an operating system which is not under an 100% free kernel?
>

--
- https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar
instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo.
- Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
(apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.