Open $ource

   "[1]Micro$oft <3 open $ource"

   Open source (OS, also Open $ource) is a [2]capitalist movement, in recent
   years degraded to a mere brand, [3]forked from the [4]free software
   movement; it is advocating at least partial "openness", i.e. strategic
   sharing of design parts with the public and allowing unpaid volunteer
   contributors from the public to take part in [5]software and [6]hardware
   development; though technically and legally the definition of open source
   is mostly identical to [7]free (as in freedom) software, in practice and
   in spirit it couldn't be more different as for abandoning the goal of
   freedom and ethics in favor of business (to which ethics is an obstacle),
   due to which [8]we see open source as inherently [9]evil and recommend
   following the free software way instead. [10]Richard Stallman, the founder
   of free software, distances himself from the open source movement. Fascist
   organizations such as [11]Microsoft and [12]Google, on the other hand,
   embrace open source (while restraining from using the term free software)
   and slowly shape it towards their goals. Open source is a short for "yes,
   it will abuse you, but at least you can read its source code." The term
   [13]FOSS is sometimes used to refer to both free software and open source
   without expressing any preference.

   Open source unfortunately (but unsurprisingly) became absolutely prevalent
   over free software as it better serves [14]capitalism and abuse of people,
   and its followers are more and more hostile towards the free software
   movement. This is very dangerous, [15]ethics and focus on actual user
   freedom is replaced by shallow legal definitions that can be bypassed,
   e.g. by [16]capitalist software and [17]bloat monopoly. In a way open
   source is capitalism reshaping free software so as to weaken it and
   eventually make its principles of freedom ineffective. Open source tries
   to shift the goal posts: more and more it offers only an illusion of some
   kind of ethics and/or freedom, it pushes towards mere partial openness
   ("open source" for proprietary platforms), towards high complexity,
   inclusion of unethical business-centered features ([18]autoupdates,
   [19]DRM, ...), high interdependency, difficulty of utilizing the rights
   granted by the license, exclusion of developers with "incorrect" political
   opinions or bad brand image etc. In practice open source has become
   something akin a mere brand which is stick to a piece of software to give
   users with little insight a feeling they're buying into something good --
   this is called [20]openwashing. This claim is greatly supported by the
   fact that corporations such as [21]Microsoft and [22]Google widely embrace
   open source ("Microsoft <3 open source", the infamous [23]GitHub
   acquisition etc.).

   "Open source" as a term and brand arose by the group of capitalists, such
   as [24]Linus Torvalds and [25]Eric. S. Raymond (author of [26]The
   Cathedral And Bazaar, a guide of how to exploit programmers to maximize
   profit), who were at the time part of the [27]free software movement but
   at the same time felt great sadness that they couldn't make enough money
   on something that's focused on ethical goals. At the beginning of 1998
   some of these businessmen held a meeting in Palo Alto with the goal of
   shifting the goal posts where one of them -- allegedly Christine Peterson
   (a [28]woman) -- suggested the term "open source" (other alternatives were
   e.g. "sourceware") which then passed by vote. Consequently the next month
   the Open Source Initiative ([29]OSI), a new propaganda organization, was
   formed, with Raymond as its president. Sadly most of the self proclaimed
   "anticapitalist rebels" among [30]zoomers aren't even aware of this recent
   history and happily follow this purely capitalist movement, use the terms
   open source, embrace and use anything with the open source sticker on it,
   use [31]GitHub etc., thinking they're "opposing something". This is
   exactly what Open Source wanted to achieve, a false sense of rebellion
   that will actually make most programmers do their bidding.

   "Free and Open Source: it is completely FREE OF COST and ALMOST ALL of its
   components are open source." --GNU/Linux [32]Mint's website already
   marketing partially proprietary system as "open source" and purposefully
   misusing the word "free" to mean "gratis" (February 2024)

   { Mint also hilariously markets itself as [33]KISS lol. My friend
   suggested they only implemented the "stupid" part of it :-) ~drummyfish }

   One great difference of open source with respect to free software is that
   open source doesn't mind proprietary dependencies and only "partially
   open" projects (see also [34]open core): [35]Windows only programs or
   [36]games in [37]proprietary engines such as [38]Unity are happily called
   open source -- this would be impossible in the context of free software
   because as [39]Richard Stallman says software can only be free if it is
   free as a whole, it takes a single proprietary line of code to allow abuse
   of the user. The "open source" communities nowadays absolutely don't care
   a bit about [40]freedom or [41]ethics (the majority of open source
   supporting zoomers most likely don't even know there was ever any
   connection), many "open source" proponents even react aggressively to
   bringing the idea of [42]ethics up. "Open source" communities use locked,
   abusive proprietary platforms such as [43]Discord, Google cloud documents
   and [44]Micro$oft's [45]GitHub to create software and collaborate -- users
   without Discord and/or GitHub account often aren't even offered a way to
   contribute, report bugs or ask for support. There are many "open source"
   projects that are just meant to be part of a mostly proprietary
   environment, for example the [46]Mangos implementation of [47]World of
   Warcraft server, which of course has to be used with the proprietary WoW
   client and with proprietary server assets, which gives Blizzard (the owner
   of WoW) complete legal control over any server running on such an "open
   source" server (such servers always only rely on Blizzard temporarily
   TOLERATING their small noncommercial communities, despite Blizzard having
   taken some of them down with legal action) -- calling such a project "free
   software" in this context would just sound laughable, so they rather call
   it "open source", i.e. "no, there is no freedom, but the source is
   technically open". Lately you will even see more and more people just
   calling any software/project "open" as long as some part of its source
   code is [48]available for viewing on GitHub, no matter the license or any
   other considerations (see e.g. "open"geofiction etc.).

   The open source definition is maintained by the [49]Open Source Initiative
   (OSI) -- they define what exactly classifies as open source and which
   [50]licenses are compatible with it. These licenses are mostly the same as
   those approved by the [51]FSF (even though not 100%). The open source
   definition is a bit more complex than that of free software, in a nutshell
   it goes along the lines:

    1. The license has to allow free redistribution of the software without
       any fees.
    2. Source code must be freely available, without any [52]obfuscation.
    3. Modification of the software must be allowed as well as redistribution
       of these modified versions under the same terms as the original.
    4. Direct modification may be forbidden only if [53]patches are allowed.
    5. The license must not discriminate against people, everyone has to be
       given the same rights.
    6. The license must not discriminate against specific uses, i.e. use for
       any purpose must be allowed.
    7. The license applies automatically to everyone who receives the
       software with the license.
    8. The license must apply generally, it cannot be e.g. limited to the
       case when the software is part of some larger package.
    9. The license must not restrict other software, i.e. it cannot for
       example be forbidden to run the software alongside some other piece of
       software.
   10. The license must be technology neutral, i.e. it cannot for example
       limit the software to certain platform or API.

   Besides this main legal definition open source is also a cult that comes
   with its own rituals and ways of thinking, again, mostly harmful ones like
   embracing [54]update culture which allows the overlords to push something
   to people and then keep reshaping it silently with "updates" as they're
   using it (see e.g. the infamous [55]xz incident in [56]Linux).

   Open source furthermore greatly fails for example by not accepting [57]CC0
   as a valid license and not accepting [58]esoteric programming languages
   (because they're "obfuscated"). All in all, avoid open source, support
   [59]free software.

See Also

     * [60]openwashing
     * [61]free software
     * [62]open core
     * [63]source available
     * [64]license

Links:
1. microsoft.md
2. capitalism.md
3. fork.md
4. free_software.md
5. sw.md
6. hw.md
7. free_software.md
8. lrs.md
9. evil.md
10. rms.md
11. microsoft.md
12. google.md
13. foss.md
14. capitalism.md
15. ethics.md
16. capitalist_software.md
17. bloat_monopoly.md
18. autoupdate.md
19. drm.md
20. openwashing.md
21. microsoft.md
22. google.md
23. github.md
24. linus_torvalds.md
25. esr.md
26. bazaar.md
27. free_software.md
28. woman.md
29. osi.md
30. zoomer.md
31. github.md
32. mint.md
33. kiss.md
34. open_core.md
35. windows.md
36. game.md
37. proprietary.md
38. unity.md
39. rms.md
40. freedom.md
41. ethics.md
42. ethics.md
43. discord.md
44. microsoft.md
45. github.md
46. mangod.md
47. wow.md
48. source_available.md
49. osi.md
50. license.md
51. fsf.md
52. obfuscation.md
53. patch.md
54. update_culture.md
55. xz.md
56. linux.md
57. cc0.md
58. esolang.md
59. free_software.md
60. openwashing.md
61. free_software.md
62. open_core.md
63. source_available.md
64. license.md