194
Did PewDiePie Just Crack the Code for How to Present Libre Software?
(blenderdumbass.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
194 points (78.7% liked)
Open Source
39214 readers
73 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
i feel like you missed the time between 1990 and 2005 when american libertarians caused a schism in the free software movement by popularising open source.
You got a problem with open source? In /c/opensource?
i've got a problem with what ESR calls open source.
like, the fact that free software is inherently political has been explored elsewhere in the thread, but the term "open source" was started by people who wanted to distance themselves from the free software movement due to them disliking that it was anti-commercial. the open source movement wanted more companies to adopt their code, in contrast to the GNU people trying to stop their work being absorbed into the old big iron.
and they won.
Who won?
the "take our work and pay us nothing, please" crowd.
I think that if your license is MIT then you don't really understand why free software exist.
i tend to use mit for things i see little value in, and something stronger for things i think may be useful.
but i don't get to publish much code.
The Free Software movement wasn't really anti-commercial, they explicitly allow commercial purposes as part of the freedoms to protect, it's part of the first freedoom they defend, "freedom zero".
And it's not like the open source movement wasn't inherently political either.. wanting more companies to join the movement is actually a political position.
But also, it's not like the Free Software movement didn't want to have more companies adopt their philosophy.. they did want that, I mean that would have been awesome if it had happened. And when possible the FSF has actively tried to convince companies to get on board, they even have run programs to help companies promote themselves as certified by the FSF, such as the "Respects Your Freedom (RYF)" certification.
What makes the Free Software movement different is that they actively see proprietary software as evil. They see freedom as a right, something mandatory, not something to merely be "open" to. Going out of your way to not use closed source software, to the point of crippling yourself digitally if necessary, is then the ethically correct behavior. Whereas the "open source" movement sees it more as an option, something that can be useful but not strictly necessary, they wont consider it inherently bad/evil to use proprietary.
This is akin to someone considering buying ethically sourced shoes as something optional vs considering it a moral obligation so as to not be complicit to evil practices. Or say.. saving energy being an option that might be convenient for you personally vs a moral obligation with the planet.
The business model at the time for most commercial projects was based on offering software as a product, not as a service, so they didn't want to release their code. When eventually the shift towards services started to happen, companies gravitated towards the "open" side because it allowed them to take advantage of free software while retaining proprietary software for those situations in which it benefited them, without being flagged as "evil" by the same community they were working with.