Interesting perspective by Drew DeVault on where the FSF fits in the current landscape of FOSS and what it needs to do to stay relevant.
antagonism towards our allies in the open source movement
The “open source movement” splintered from Free Software specifically to circumvent the ethical ramifications that those “pages and pages of dense philosophical essays” are about. That movement has never been an “ally” to Free Software. It was an antagonistic relationship from the start.
And hip new software isn’t using copyleft
That’s not an accident. And it’s not because people don’t know about the GPL or copyleft. It’s because the vast majority of programmers earn their (substantial) bread and butter from companies that want nothing to do with copyleft. Programmers don’t get paid to write copyleft code, and any code that they do write off-the-clock, they also want to be able to use on-the-clock, leaving only “open source” licenses for that code too.
This isn’t something that the FSF can “fix.” This is something that boils down to each and every individual programmer deciding whether or not to prioritize Freedom over money.
leaving us vulnerable to exploitation from growing movements like open core and commercial attacks on the free and open source software brand.
…
the relationship between free software and open source needs to be reformed so that the FSF and OSI stand together as the pillars at the foundations of our ecosystem
“Open Source” is the exploitative “growing movement.” Never forget: Open Source Misses the Point. This was always the point of “open source,” and the FSF has been clear about that forever. Drew is complaining about the exploitation as if it’s a bug. It’s not! It’s the killer feature! The call is coming from inside the house. The FSF and the OSI cannot “stand together” because they are built upon mutually exclusive ideologies and priorities.
The FSF fails to understand its place in the world as a whole, or its relationship to the progressive movements taking place in the ecosystem and beyond.
…
If the FSF still wants to be involved in the movement, they need to recognize and empower the leaders who are pushing the cause forward.
The FSF knows its place perfectly well. It is the bulwark against the so-called “progress” of “open source.” The FSF may be on the losing side currently. But it’s not on the wrong one. “Open source” isn’t “pushing the cause forward.” It is the principle driver of the cause’s decline, leeching energy from Free Software in the name of placating industry.
We’ve had 20+ years of that arrangement. And it’s gone about as well as the FSF said it would.
This is a bit of an exaggeration
I would love to see the “but it’s GNU/Linux!” shouts ended. In days of yore there was a case that you really were using the Linux kernel with a predominantly GNU user land, true. But now other projects like browsers, desktop environments, and office suites make up a much greater share of the code in a given system and the GNU portions can usually be swapped out. Insisting that GNU be put on a pedestal does a disservice to the rest of the ecosystem. Also, GNU/Linux just sounds clumsy, unlike Linux. Something that rolls off the tongue is its own virtue.
For the most part yes, but there are still adherents to “GNU/Linux” that will talk your ear off if you give them the air and an excuse.
While it does sound clumsy, it also doesnt sound like a brand, and i appreciate that.
The part that i appreciate the most about free software is its community. I think GNU/Linux highlights that more than pronouncing the name of a single project.
Insisting that GNU be put on a pedestal does a disservice to the rest of the ecosystem.
Interestingly, this is the exact same argument I make against putting Linux on a pedestal.
Just GNU. GNU is the OS. They don’t call android Android/Linux either.
That doesn’t really make much sense. If you go that route, you could also call it SystemD/KDE/Firefox etc. You don’t even have to use any GNU in your Linux installation at all.
There is GNU with and without SystemD/KDE/Firefox. There could even be GNU with another kernel than linux. But it’s always GNU, the OS.
Yes, and there is Linux without GNU, I don’t really see a point in elevating GNU specifically. I would argue that there is much greater importance in the Kernel itself than in the GNU coreutils. GNU was maybe important historically more than other projects, but currently it is just a tiny drop in the bucket. There are many other parts of the system that I would argue are much more significant.
Plus, even if you were right, it is just not practical. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anyone referring to any system as GNU, and very, very few as GNU/Linux. Everyone just uses the term Linux. Plus, it is much more descriptive. You could argue that today you can have GNU/Windows if you install cygwin, but not really sure if it would make sense to call it that. At that point you could say that Windows is GNU and for example Alpine is not. But I would really like to see someone argue that Windows has more in common with Debian, than Alpine has with Debian.
In some contexts it might make sense to refer to it as GNU/Linux, for example if you are comparing it to a distro that doesn’t use GNU, but other than that I don’t really see any point.
Android is not called Linux, macOS is not called Unix. Why would it be different with GNU?
This does not concern at all the posted article.
From the article:
Hammering on about “GNU/Linux” nomenclature
Title: FSF is dying
Article: FSF is too niche
Meant to get clicks, I personally think they’re trying too hard
It’s a bad article. RMS is perfect in his thinking even today.
it’s not about his thinking, it’s about his public image and how it reflects on the FSF. he’s controversial, and a controversial leader is exactly not what the FSF needs
Media prints what it is paid to print.
If truth is controversial, be it. We’re with RMS.
i’m not saying RMS is wrong at all. all i’m saying is that if the FSF wants to reach more people, a certain amount of pragmatism is required. RMS, his ideology aside, has a tarnished reputation. the FSF should keep his ideals of course, but have a new champion, one who more people can identify with and who doesn’t have all the baggage that RMS has
Baggage, lol! Yes, I agree with you that RMS is less pragmatic. He requires things to be just as they would ideally be for the transition.
