When you're talking about Linux, it's okay to say that it's "open source".
It's okay to say that it's "free software".
It's okay to call it "GNU/Linux", "Linux", or to mess up its name.
It's okay to refer to it as "the one with the friendly penguin".
Part of RMS' legacy has been an incessant obsession with terminology and pedantry, overshadowing far more important shared objectives which are fundamentally emancipatory in nature.
Pedantry is not activism; it is alienating, not emancipatory.
@JordiGH @eloquence see I never understood why it must have political stigma attached to it. Can't some just produce Foss software because they want others to see the code, help maintain, and feel like their giving back to a cool group of like minded people?
I can care less about peoples political motivation for a software, I'd rather know their road map.
I do agree about the FSF needing to push more deeds. They could help promote other programs or host their own.
@jordan31 Politics aren't a stigma. Everything is politics.
Politics are like accents: if you think someone doesn't have them, that's just because they have the same as yours.
@JordiGH no, not everything is political. I tend to steer away from software that is made "political" by the dev/owner. I could care less how you vote or your beliefs, I'm just needing an RSS reader.
Again, I'm not downloading a program to support someone else's political crap, I'm just in need of a open source version of xyz program.
@jordan31 That's a political stance. You're against software that cares about software freedom. You have a position. You don't want to be told that software should be free. You think that shouldn't be said. Those are your politics: be quiet, you don't want to hear it.
@JordiGH that's actually not a political stance. That's just me not caring about the devs political stance.
@JordiGH I don't think you got it but OK. I never said not to say it, I just could care less. People still talk all day long about Foss and their political ideas behind it. Be my guest. Up to me if I ignore it or use the software or simply unplug the internet and say FCK it.
@jordan31 Okay, we'll keep saying it. I'll keep saying it. We all deserve free software and we should have it and we should keep building it.
We should not need non-free software. We should not have a reason to use non-free software.
And I'll keep submitting patches or building free software whenever I can.
@jordan31 And of course you can ignore because you don't care. But if you don't care you can also hear me, because hey, it's the same to you. It's irrelevant what I say as long as I build software, right?
@JordiGH that's good, you should. Its how the system works and allows me to use foss that has less bugs.
politics, free software
@jordan31 @JordiGH The activist that invented RSS was killed because of his political view. RSS is not apolitical. It's imply a decentralised vision of the distribution of information. It seems you have a problem with the definition of political. Gnu licence is political, compagny owned program as well. having an open source version of a program is political
"Can't some just produce Foss software because they want others to see the code, help maintain, and feel like their giving back to a cool group of like minded people?"
What you just described is anti-capitalist. The very idea of collectively owned and maintained services is political by its anti-capitalist nature. If you work on FOSS then you're doing anti-capitalist praxis whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
A family-friendly social network (Mastodon instance) devoted to the new life found in Christ.