I feel strongly that "open" is also confusing because it doesn't bring
to mind the primary goal, freedom, and this has concrete disadvantages
like not publishing source files.
Well I disagree to that,
I think ‘Open’ is much more nice, as it suggests inclusiveness.
I only believe freedom exists as something individuals can seek to
attain.
The whole ‘free as in freedom’ discourse to me is telling other people
what is best for them.
That’s why I don’t believe in it:
I feel it threatens my personal space by saying how I do things is not
right.
It is not that I am uninformed waiting to enlightened, I simple choose
to use both free and non-free software and attribute no higher moral
standing to either of them.
The FSF discourse is authoritarian and patriarchical because it
creates dichotomies, right and wrong, free and non-free. Making
distinctions like that is the basis for being not nice to other people.
We make these distinctions all the time, because that’s how we
function, but I really believe that being able to transcend your own
binary judgments forms the basic of ethics.
The promise of foss licenses for me lies in exactly the opposite
direction:
The fact that they are open ended.
That you say, well I am probably not able to see the whole picture,
but it is likely someone else will find a use for my work I could not
come up with myself.
Instead of telling the world they are wrong, you tell the world the
world is bigger than you.
