I know we are defed’d from them but I couldn’t resist the urge to share this absolutely uproarious chudpost from world.
https://lemmy.world/comment/7020579
Meta will become the champion of Open Source and near completely become as known for it as Google was in the mid to late 00’s. They will dominate AI to such an extent Facebook will be the inbred backwater project that no one thinks about when the name Meta pops up. I know it’s hard to swallow and believe right now, but the Zuck isn’t the driver that matters here. Yann LeCun is the person behind Meta AI and he is Bell Labs alumni beating the war drum of open source for market leadership, not monopoly, just leadership. The majority of the digital age exists on those credentials; a Bell Labs alumni pushing Open Source. That is worth betting big on IMO.
It may take a couple hundred years, but AGI lead government is coming, once conservative stupidity fades. A politician with infinite persistence and fractal attention is far better than anything finite corruptible humans with tiny attention spans can offer the public.
Open Source (as a movement) is liberal cope. Richard Stallman was absolutely right when he wrote that Open Source would create ideological chuds like these. The worst thing is that these type of people invade Linux/hacker spaces and you're stuck arguing with them about the merits of ChatGPT or Photoshop or whatever pointless techbro thing that's on their mind. They're also socially conservative and will go out of their way to make the space unsafe for everyone.
FOSS is revisionist. In my experience, trying to tie these two groups of thought was a horrible idea. Say one or the other and commit to it, and I hope you will choose free (libre) software instead of people who can't imagine a world beyond GitHub Copilot.
Sorry for the rant, but it's just infuriating sometimes and I can't let it out normally because I'll just be called a purist.
Thankfully there are some bright exceptions within the FOSS community like the Lemmy devs
Copying and redistributing software is your fundamental human right.
You're a loser if you're not doing piracy and/or reverse engineering to piss off companies.
are you sure you didn't mean OSS here?
There's a long standing debate about terms like FOSS and FLOSS and whether they are conductive to creating a shared community. I'm in the anti-FOSS camp in that I feel that it's not responsible (for me at least) to clump both of these groups together. People go into this 'space' (for a lack of a better word) for different reasons and have different goals (and frankly, different attitudes).
I'm not going to negate anyone's desire to use words like FLOSS or FOSS, but I want people who do use these words to understand that it is not a monolith of shared beliefs. There are people who have been using Linux for decades and there's people like me who have only started using Linux since the pandemic (much less learn the theory and history of Free software). It's much less a community/movement and more of a space/collective of people of all different backgrounds who come together to share and discuss ideas. Nor do I want people to use these terms to recontextualize history and misrepresent the facts (I will hold you accountable if you call RMS the "Father of Open Source", essentially erasing the actual open source folks who started the movement).
Honestly, there's no academic field/focus on the history of free software as this field is still so new and rapidly changing which is part of the reason why people argue over things like GNU/Linux and FOSS, it's an exercise in creating a history.
TL;DR "FOSS/FLOSS" makes me uncomfortable because I don't want to speak over anyone or claim to speak for a community when really people are more diverse than that. My mindset has always been to stay true to my own beliefs which is how I moderate the 'libre' comm here on hexbear.
I mean that's sort of my point, in distinguishing open source software (very much not free software in whatever acronym you want to use) from free software. Conflating free software with facebook open sourcing their work to commoditize their complements is misleading I think.
OP that we're dunking on here is some open source fetishist that's never for a second introspected on what "Open Source" means or how it might be distinct from the copyleft movement, and so has wound up in the position of stanning these monopolists and making absurd statements like "open source for market leadership, not monopoly, just leadership". What no theory does to a mf, basically.
FOSS vs FLOSS is some RMS pedantic bs and misses the forest for the trees as is usual with him. The randian reactionaries at the open source initiative don't call their shit FOSS and never talk about freedom. There's a reason OP is fellating "Open Source" and not "Free Software" here.
Can you elaborate here? I think RMS is a shitty person that doesn't belong in the position of leadership he's been given. But "actual open source" sounds suspiciously close to Open Source Initiative, something founded by Randian misogynists like Perens and Raymond well after the copyleft movement had gained traction in order to recuperate compatible parts of free software to better serve capital.
Yeah you hit it pretty much on the head here. Basically your OSI/Github types who created a campaign against copyleft. BS like "post-open" that sprouted recently from that same group that basically are nonfree licenses all over again instead of tackling the actual issue of capitalism.
Sometimes I think I just too worried all the time. FOSS spaces are just very terminally online (out of necessity really since we are so small comparatively) and that leads to a lot of reactionary takes that aren't actually reflective of real people's attitudes. Which leads to a lot of arguing with people who haven't even done their basic homework.
I see your point, I still have lingering reservations about using the term FOSS but I can understand it better now.