I don't really like how the free software foundation handled richard stall-manchild when he publicly contested the testimony of an Epstein accuser
The tendrils of big tech are making it harder, but I still think that the ide of free software is cool and the type of utopian thinking that the promise of the net was supposed to bring.
Sort of, but not exactly. Definitionally, "Free Software" and "Open Source Software" are virtually equivalent (comparing the "four freedoms" stated in the GNU Manifesto with the Debian Free Software Guidelines and the OSI Free Software Definition). The difference is in marketing and stated purpose. The term "Open Source" was introduced by Eric Raymond in the 90s to market free software as a practical thing which would increase efficiency and reduce costs within the tech industry, whereas the GNU project has always outlined the effort in terms of personal freedom and autonomy.
The fundamental flaw of the GNU project is the idealist framing of the struggle for computational freedom, which puts it in a grey zone where it is capable of eating away at the rate of profit and improving people's lives, but is not capable of wresting control of the world's digital infrastructure from the hands of rentier capitalists. It was once capable of dislodging monopolies in end-user software, things like office suites, browsers, operating systems, etc. But it has no answer for the growing phenomenon of monopoly platforms, the consolidation of physical network and hosting infrastructure, or the mass production of consumer electronics with built-in survaillence systems.
This is different from Veganism/Vegitarianism which cannot be substituted for one-another in practice, and which have different principles on the foundational level.
OSI was founded and is run by randian ghouls and exists solely to promote software licensing that's favorable to software monopolists.
