-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 22:52:32 +0200, Pen-Yuan Hsing wrote: > While I tried to emphasise the importance of the four freedoms, what > really got them interested was (1) getting the community to help with > development so they won't have to deal with a massive todo list of > wishlisted features on their own, and (2) that as scientists the > software should be open to peer review just like any other method.
As it tends to be. If they don't care about users' freedoms, that is unfortunate, but it is still beneficial to help them to liberate their software. I would stick with using the term "free software", even if they consistently use "open source". It may not change their terminology (it doesn't where I work), but it'll hopefully keep it in the foreground. > Anyway, thanks again for your input thus far, from what I've gathered > here's some points from what you've suggested: > > * Free Software will be of higher quality. Be careful with this one. While this can be true, this is one of the arguments of open source. When free software isn't of higher quality, we still stand strong and can argue for its use, because free software still respects our freedoms; however, if "open source" software fails to be of higher quality than a proprietary alternative, there is no leg to stand on. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html > * Even if they one day want to sell this software, keeping it Free > will actually make it easier. I'm not sure about "easier". I'm not an economist or business strategist, and I'd be absolutely terrible at selling software; but business models vary widly---some find great success in selling free software, while others find great difficulty (support contracts are one common option). > * Free Software will avoid unmaintained software from permanently dying. Free software will always be free, so someone can one day pick it up, dust it off, and give it some love. Proprietary software, barring one or more of the four freedoms, is doomed to a desk drawer or archaic hardware. > Has anyone here successfully helped convert a proprietary software > project into a Free one? How do you go about this while respecting > the hard work and good intentions of the developers? I haven't reached out very much until the past couple of years. But I do on occasion, with limited success. I've had luck with my employer, but communication on this level is fundamentally different than the situation you're in. I've had luck with liberating GitLab EE's JavaScript[0], but Sytse was very receptive and didn't really need any convincing. I've made many other attempts---some of them even to authors of papers in journals like Nature---with less than desirable results in most circumstances. You're in the excellent situation of having met the authors face-to-face and have gotten them interested. I'm a free software activist. My opinions are firm and my words can be harsh and unforgiving. But that does not make for a constructive dialog: you should discuss the fundamental freedoms and why free software is important, but work initially within or just outside of their comfort zone, helping them to gain a firm understanding. Know your audience---know how to make connections to the various topics in a way they can relate to (as I did with some of the points previously in this thread). Be receptive, understanding, and accommodating. But never falter. Compromise is often necessary (sometimes initially, sometimes period---that's life, and politics). But you still need to stand firm in your defense and push of and for software freedom. They may want to liberate only certain parts of their system---that's good that they want to do that. But never imply that it is okay that the rest of their system remains proprietary. Encourage them, and thank them for their contributions, but don't make excuses for them, or allow them to make excuses. Make your stance clear, your disagreements clear, and your goals clear. In my experience, we can disagree wildly, but still communicate those disagreements and respect one-another in a constructive and powerful way. Be mindful of certain limits. It's not reasonable to push for the liberation of software that they simply do not have control over---there may be 3rd-party licensing issues, NDAs, grant terms, etc. > What are some infamous examples of dead/graveyard technical > proprietary software? Consider GNU. We are using and improving on tools that are more than thirty years old---some before GNU existed. The better question is: what proprietary software can you think of that has stood this test of time? Users are concerned about dying software all the time. What if Apple decided one day to simply stop developing its software? What would happen with all the data stored in proprietary formats, or software using their proprietary APIs? What would happen to all of the software that runs only on their operating system? Or what if they did it intentionally, to force users to "upgrade" to something newer? > Finally, I believe there will be great value in creating an extensive FAQ > about Free Software to answer and rebut some of the issues I mentioned > before. I think a thorough, empirical evidence-based issue-by-issue > debunking of Free Software myths would be wonderful. I promise I don't mean > to detract from the topic of this list, but here are two great examples of > what I am talking about for another important topic: That would be a good resource. > P.S. I intentionally did not go into exactly what the science is since > I don't think it is very relevant and would take a lot more space, but > I can explain if you are curious. Feel free to off-list if you'd like. I might be able to provide more specific examples, or alternatives they might be able to consider. Thank you for your efforts! [0]: https://about.gitlab.com/2015/05/20/gitlab-gitorious-free-software/ - -- Mike Gerwitz Free Software Hacker | GNU Maintainer http://mikegerwitz.com FSF Member #5804 | GPG Key ID: 0x8EE30EAB -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVxXDtAAoJEPIruBWO4w6rHMMQAMgCDyCwMdZoCkdj6zbDvUJm b9LzIi9VHZNycq2YWbiHvRmWY+s52AMd1+tizd71NT+vjGCCkOJhn+4eD+mN5FLR p63Bx5S4YY5KXyDodYxW7k0Ub28VjxSJaZBRgZo2ePoO90F7e1t9dQY24vYnIVjO jjYSLmsaVCnFFFXu87Qfh/ktW2IG+MlT1sNDiwaf67lUaVtPYhQPohOgPQoLHaqP j9tab4DrFMqdmLinyUVZ/k7lEy2C8zWcpYczgdZw5m18Eiaxx1LXdNAfjS7RDA/3 3RzKQncGeIvHvesYC8d/o4629zbWX/InqyFk/rVmYKAsi2xGE7ItrHtIgBvm5NxH YUa4f61WLi6NrdXAG+HPCoeLAn2wJPBDidcY6a56GBE+L2rT4rLoEOPvxsrVgJOT i4d9AkNAokd79mmd+t1zaNDQYzhGOme0Wv9meu/x98D1Mzwda0hTJ7d0Lo9K2VRa 0Hrzszm9KNf9ON1zibe64gLiYZx1rIjqR9PcOshes8tVns17UYf4QmmZKLsDSH/G gUZW+LNuI82TjcPJc2Q1CJ2G+cMO6bJq0CiaUt7ldb6dY2PFfHwTWeC7PsCZJDgn wLJYCgXBoKJhylWIIVXChIgaqB0NcOokj7Td9CLnwfcxH+m4FwAlBij1CWGGCWie nhDV8Ihr8B2wThh4GHoV =oORn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----