This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Feature: Free Software

Why FOSS isn't on activist agendas

By Bruce Byfield on December 13, 2006 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

In theory, free and open source software (FOSS) should have a direct appeal to those concerned with ethics and social issues. Yet, in practice, it rarely does. Although the FOSS and activist communities frequently share ethical positions and social interests ranging from freedom of expression and cooperative organization to consumer rights, privacy, and anti-trust legislation, mostly the two groups remain unaware of each other. Why?

Those comfortable in both the FOSS and activist arenas see several problems that must be overcome before activists can accept FOSS. These problems include the FOSS community's insularity, its failure to deliver the right message to the activists' technophobia, and a failure to make connections. In the end, it may be only by seeing the values that underlie both FOSS and other causes that any connection can be made.

Obstacles in the FOSS community

Henri Poole is a member of Civic Actions, a virtual company that plans online campaigns for activists, and also a director of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and a Defective By Design organizer. He compares the lack of communication between the FOSS and activist communities to that of speakers of different languages in Europe. In both cases, not only language and jargon but culture differences cause divisions. Members of the FOSS community, Poole suggests, may be comfortable speaking about ethical and social issues among themselves and on their own preferred terms, but not with outsiders who "don't seem to be part of the tribe." People in the FOSS community, he says, "haven't really gone outside their world enough to see that they're really very similar to people who want justice in economics and religion."

Poole suggests that the relative youth of the FOSS community may be another factor. Poole sees maturation as a gradual process of recognizing connections with others, and raises the possibility that many FOSS advocates may be too young to draw analogies between themselves and social activists.

Instead, they are more likely to see differences. The problem may be compounded by the fact that, in some activist groups -- although by no means all -- the average age tends to be older. Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF and one of the main organizers of the Defective By Design campaign, notes that the FSF "finds that some people who are part of our mailing list or part of our campaigns to be under 30." By contrast, Brown estimates the average age of readers of a politically aware magazine that he approached for coverage to be well over 40.

Marco Fioretti, a writer who has campaigned to interest both the Scouting movement and Christians in FOSS, agrees that the FOSS community is isolated, but is far more critical than either Poole or Brown. Evaluating the responses to his articles about his efforts, Fioretti notes that "while the groups I addressed mostly ignored me or agreed I am right, 80% of the reactions from the FOSS world were not simply negative, but filled with hatred and/or bigotry." Most of the reactions, he said, amounted to either a fear that the Scouts or Christians would hijack the FOSS movement, or accusations that these groups were bigots or racists. Fioretti concludes that "the FOSS community, which is proud to be tolerant, modern, liberal, and freedom-loving, contains a lot of bigots and terribly narrow-minded people."

Brown suggests that this insularity has resulted in a message that has appeal only inside the community. A non-programmer himself, Brown has spent much of his time as FSF executive director looking for ways to broad the appeal of FOSS. His conclusion is that the ethics, not the software, is what needs to be discussed.

Comparing FOSS to recycling, Brown asks rhetorically, "What's recycling about? Is recycling the most economical way of treating garbage? Or is it about protecting the environment?" The popularity of recycling was not generated by talking about the details of processing garbage, Brown implies, but talking about social responsibility. The FOSS community, he suggests, needs to take the same approach.

Obstacles among activists

At the same time, activists have their own share of insularity. When talking to the Scouting movement and Christians, Fioretti says, his main problem was "to begin a discussion. People were visibly struggling to understand why they should listen to me in the first place. They're weren't against my thesis; they simply could not understand what the subject of the discussion was supposed to be. Why should anybody spend so much energy to set and enforce policies on something that looked so unrelated to the organization mission statement and so intrinsically irrelevant as mandating, say, that all parishes or troops should always buy screwdrivers with the handles in at least two colors?" The fact that activists might see connections between pacifism and environmentalism as causes did not mean that they could immediately see connections with their existing beliefs and new ones.

Brown had a similar experience that he attributes to technophobia. Talking about his efforts to interest the activist media in free software, he says, "They were very uncomfortable with the approach. And the main reason was because they don't understand software. They're not technologists, and they're very scared of technology. They typically find it a difficult subject to research and to have an opinion on, and therefore they actually avoid it. They just don't understand it." Largely through this experience, Brown concluded that, if activists were to respond favorably to FOSS, they would only do so at an ethical level. Brown is currently organizing a campaign by the FSF to reach out to the activist community with this new approach.

A possible solution

Poole suggests that the lack of connection comes from the fact that members of both communities have trouble seeing beyond their daily concerns. From his work with Civic Actions, he suggests a possible solution.

Because Civic Action members work remotely, they meet several times a year for what Poole calls a "values remix." At the meeting, members write down their core values, and then discuss them as a group. "We really get to see that what drives us at a real low level. When we go through the process of aligning what's underneath our creativity, our passion, and our work, we end up getting closer together, and we're able to have a conversation with people who don't really speak our language of technology. So our tech people get really close with people with whom they wouldn't be able to have a really close conversation or relation." In other words, by moving to a higher level of abstraction than they usually work on, the members of Civic Action find their common ground.

Poole adds that Civic Action works in the same way with clients. Noting that one of the company's clients is a campaign against the death penalty, Poole suggests that both FOSS and social activism are ultimately both "about respect and liberty. I mean, who has the right to take somebody's life? Who has the right to take some piece of software away from me that I've invented? Who has the right to say to my child it's not all right to remix? We have certain values that we believe in and fundamentally they're all aligned, but we don't have the space to have a conversation about the alignment beneath our day-to-day activities." He suggests that, if members of the FOSS community can make the same connections with social activists as Civic Actions does with its clients, then the two groups will see that, in the end, they stand for the same basic values.

In any attempt to deepen the appeal of FOSS, reaching out to those with shared values is only logical. Moreover, as Brown points out, reaching just one social action group could easily mean reaching most of them. "One group may be working against child poverty, another for recycling," Brown says, "but the people in these organizations can almost be transferred from one to the next." In fact, they often are. No matter what cause activists focus on, they frequently support other causes because they see a direct connection between the values behind the causes. If FOSS can become one of those values, it should therefore spread rapidly.

Bruce Byfield is a computer journalist who writes regularly for NewsForge, Linux.com, and IT Manager's Journal.

Bruce Byfield is a computer journalist who writes regularly for Linux.com.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Why FOSS isn't on activist agendas

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Because it only looks similar on the surface.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 12:06 PM
Because Free software people are interested in Freedom.

Semi-Pro activists are for a centralized socialist government were they push their political agenda down on people who don't share their views.

Economics, welfare, environmental, homosexual activists actively go after courts and sue people, challenge people in court and go after to polititions to pass new laws matching their world view.

Free software is oposite. It's about setting up a situation were people are free to do as you please even if they disagree with you.

They seem similar on the surface, but are not.

For example your typical activits would like to see a software license that forbids miltary use, or if your a bigot your not allowed to use the software to make it easier to segregate schools.. were for a free software people that would be so insane to do they wouldn't even think of it.

It's the same reason why you don't see big conservative or libertarian ralies, even though those people far out number the 'leftist activist' sorts.

#

Comment and invitation from M. Fioretti

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 02:08 PM
Since I am mentioned in the article, I have posted some feedback as a <a href="http://community.linux.com/comments.pl?sid=37689&cid=93966" title="linux.com">comment to it at Linux.com</a linux.com>.


Best Regards,


<a href="http://digifreedom.net/" title="digifreedom.net">Marco Fioretti</a digifreedom.net>

#

not universally true

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 03:10 AM
Here in Bologna, Italy, I find quite often (albeit only in the last two-three years) that OSS and copyleft are high on the agenda of activist political groups -mostly of radical left ones, but not only.

Unfortunately, on the istitutional side the issue is practically unknown, instead...

dev/urandom

#

Try Other Groups

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 03:25 AM
Both the Boy Scouts and the Christians are not really groups that would appeal to ethically minded FOSS individuals. While I agree that not all Boy Scout organizations are anti-gay and not all Christians are right-wing, anti-gay, pro-war, etc., they are portrayed in the media that way.

It would be better to start with activists that are more aligned with FOSS beliefs or visa versa and build a bond there before branching out.

#

What media are you reading, crackie??

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 11:46 AM
Your insinuation that the Boy Scouts and Christians are a bunch of wack-jobs isn't cool - not with me - and not with most of the world's citizens.

You're attempting to create your own reality by saying "the media" says this, so it's true, not because of me, but because of "everyone else."

If you're going to accuse, stand up, and accuse. Don't hide or cower or jockey around the truth.

#

Re:Try Other Groups, by M. Fioretti

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 03:50 PM
My point, both in the articles that Byfield linked and in the others on the same themes (<a href="http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7813" title="linuxjournal.com">RMS Meets the World Scout Bureau</a linuxjournal.com> and <a href="http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/11/03/1643243&tid=31" title="newsforge.com">Free Software's Surprising Affinity with Catholic Doctrine</a newsforge.com>) is exactly that Scouts and Christians (the true ones, not the versions portrayed in the media) are just groups whose philosophies anticipated (and I say this without any intent to "hijack" FOSS, really) many thesis of "ethically minded FOSS individuals".

Best Regards,
<a href="http://digifreedom.net/" title="digifreedom.net">M. Fioretti</a digifreedom.net>

#

Re:Try Other Groups, by M. Fioretti

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 03:55 PM
Sorry, I hit "Submit" before adding "...and therefore those groups are already much more aligned to each other than they realize, so it shouldn't be difficult (with an open mind, of course) to cooperate)"

Marco

#

Re:Try Other Groups, by M. Fioretti

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 06:27 PM
In my own experience, which I admit is not too widespread (but still, it may be worth something), I see that certain other activist groups ARE very sympathetic to FOSS issues. I mean in particular anti-globalization activists and social welfare/justice activists.

Perhaps these two groups are more inclined to support FOSS because the matter of distribution of wealth is a shared issue, at least in part. I'm not sure. But regardless of reason, this observation does seem to hold true.

#

you live here too

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 03:25 AM
You, an arbitrary FOSS activist, lives in this world as well. Perhaps you should consider also being a social activist? Why must we separate struggles and injustices into categories to solve individually? We should instead collaborate and co-operate to strengthen each other, so that making a better tomorrow is not such an impossible task. Talk to each other, learn from others experiences, form some consensus and organize.

Aside: Please stop arguing over which language/tool/syntax is superior. Instead of trying to convert people to your favorite tools, use them and led by example.

#

Re:you live here too

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2006 02:10 AM
Please stop arguing over which language/tool/syntax is superior.


But such arguments are not purposeless. One, they are fun. We really do enjoy them. Yes, our blood pressure goes through the roof, but we still get a kick out of a good old vim/emacs jihad. Two, we learn valuable information, not only about our opponents' tools, but about our own. It is hard to argue in favor of vim when you don't actually know much about vim. So if you think you prefer vim, and there's a jihad going on on slashdot, then you're going to pull out your vim manual and read up on some cool features so that you've got ammunition. Outsiders can learn a lot about the actual relative merits of things too by following these holy wars.

I don't think that something which is both entertaining and educational should really be frowned upon quite so much, much less curtailed.

#

Umm...Free Software activists *ARE* activists

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 07:00 AM
'Scuze me...have none of you ever heard of the Free Software Foundation? It is an activist group fighting for freedom. Richard Stallman started the Free Software movement, and the FSF itself, based on activism for freedom. Eben Moglen, the FSF's lawyer, will tell you the same thing.

<a href="http://www.fsf.org/" title="fsf.org">http://www.fsf.org/</a fsf.org>

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (<a href="http://www.eff.org/" title="eff.org">http://www.eff.org/</a eff.org> and Software Freedom Law Center (<a href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org/" title="softwarefreedom.org">http://www.softwarefreedom.org/</a softwarefreedom.org>) are also activist groups. They, too, are fighting for our freedom.

Now, "Open Sourcers" such as Linus Torvalds and Eric S. Raymond, are indeed not activists. They're too busy trying to supress the message of freedom to be "more palatable to business." Of course, that mindset by itself is exactly why we have the Microsoft-Novell patent agreement today.

I use GNU/Linux *because* I am an activist--because I believe in freedom. I promote K12LTSP *because* I am an activist, not in spite of it. It's simply the right thing to do.

#

Re:Umm...Free Software activists *ARE* activists

Posted by: nanday on December 14, 2006 09:32 AM
Umm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you did notice, didn't you, that I quote the executive director of the FSF and a member of the FSF board of directors?

The FSF may be composed of activists, but if those coordinating the organization think it's isolated from other social causes, then it probably is.

- Bruce Byfield (nanday)

#

liberal?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 08:12 AM
FOSS is mostly full of libertarians, who are only "liberal" in the archaic sense in that they think you should be free to do anything you want, so long as it makes you rich.

#

Re:liberal?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 09:30 AM
That is why we charge so much for our software... Oh wait. n/m

#

Re:Libertarian??

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 11:51 AM
That sounds very much like modern day conservativism in an economic sense. It's very 'Laissez faire' and consistent with modern (conservative) economics.

#

Re:liberal? - you've confused us with proprietary

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 11:45 PM
"you should be free to do anything you want, so long as it makes you rich"

- charge no riches for the software
- free too build on and distribute said software
- free to use said software in any way you wish

- compete and "makes you rich" based on copyright, quality of software and related services

Last time I checked, there was a whole lot of service based business, research and education driven development and hobbiest curiousity involved. Care to point out specifically where you see FOSS advicating "so long as it makes you money"?

#

The easy answer

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 09:48 AM
The majority of the people I know that label themselves as social activists do not see the problem with using the software their computer came with. Some choose Apple's product because it is a choice and requires no setup, most do not care.

Some are even bigoted against FOSS because of the old productivity argument as evidenced by <a href="http://lefti.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_lefti_archive.html#115628562291984604" title="blogspot.com">this blog post</a blogspot.com>:
Yes, all you purists out there are going to tell me I should favor Linux, open source, yadda, yadda. I'll choose productivity over purity any time, especially when that productivity is directed toward political activism. And no, the fact that I live in Cupertino doesn't affect my choice.


Blah... if we value freedom then we have to accord them the right to give up their freedom.

#

Re:practically answers its own questions

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 11:04 AM
I think you have put together a very large list there: China, Iran, Hamas, North Korea, Turkey... Perhaps you might be interested in "remixing" a bit. If so please take a look at <a href="http://www.atimes.com/" title="atimes.com">http://www.atimes.com/</a atimes.com>. I think you will be from gratified to exasperated and everything in between. And well, informed.

#

Comment and invitation from M. Fioretti

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 02:04 PM


First of all, thanks to B. Byfield for reporting my long-time concerns about these issues.



Next, I wanted to let all readers know that a few months ago I opened a website, associated to a book which I am writing, whose purpose is just to close the big gap between FOSS advocates and what is perhaps the biggest class of social
activists: parents and teachers. The website is <a href="http://digifreedom.net/" title="digifreedom.net">Digifreedom.net: the Family Guide to Digital Freedom</a digifreedom.net>. Byfield himself <a href="http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000099" title="linuxjournal.com">reviewed the website when it opened</a linuxjournal.com> and <a href="http://digifreedom.net/node/75" title="digifreedom.net">here is my answer to his comments</a digifreedom.net>. The part that FOSS advocates should read first is this <a href="http://digifreedom.net/node/77" title="digifreedom.net">explanation</a digifreedom.net>. I also invite all readers to forward my <a href="http://digifreedom.net/node/74" title="digifreedom.net">Open letter to Mothers</a digifreedom.net> to whoever it may concern.



Last but not least, a comment on these statements by P. Brown:



Brown had a similar experience that he attributes to technophobia...<a href="just" title="linux.com">activists</a linux.com><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... don't understand software....



95% of all human beings understands little or nothing about software and, therefore, are really technophobic about it. For me this has always been a fact of life, neither good nor bad: Digifreedom.net, the whole <a href="http://digifreedom.net/taxonomy/term/1" title="digifreedom.net">Guide</a digifreedom.net> and all my other work start from this assumption. Regardless of what you think of my work, I sincerely hope that all FOSS activists start to take this truth into account.



if activists were to respond favorably to FOSS, they would only do so at an ethical level... Brown is currently organizing a campaign by the FSF to reach out to the activist community with this new approach.



Even if I am indeed <a href="http://digifreedom.net/node/77" title="digifreedom.net"> critical of how some FOSS activists have advocated FOSS so far</a digifreedom.net> I do want that Free as in Freedom digital standards and software are used as much as possible. I am sincerely convinced that the Digifreedom website and book may be very <a href="http://digifreedom.net/node/73" title="digifreedom.net">useful tools to support this new FSF campaign</a digifreedom.net>, if nothing else to start a discussion with parents and non-FOSS activists, to cath their interest in the first place.



The reason is that website and book have exactly the "new approach" mentioned above: they start from, and mainly talk, of ethical (education, civil rights, equal opportunities) and practical (family budget, finding and keeping a job) issues, arriving to why and how Free standards and software are crucial in this context at the end, almost by accident. In this context, while my writings do not endorse only FOSS, all the time, they give all parents, or so I hope, an excellent reason why they should listen to an FSF activist when he or she will knock at their door.



I am very interested in hearing what all FOSS activists think of Digifreedom.net, and of these comments of mine. Please let me now either here or via email to marco, @REMOVETHIS.digifreedom.net).



Best Regards,



<a href="http://digifreedom.net/" title="digifreedom.net">Marco Fioretti</a digifreedom.net>

#

Hmm

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 06:10 PM
We're so different, yet so similar.
What we have in common with other activists is that we have a cause and that we wants to achieve something.

Though, we're different because we have different causes and different things we wish to achieve, not all activists have freedom on their agenda.

In a sense, terrorists are some kind of activists too. More radical though. More extreme. They cross the line though. They use methods that are wrong.

I think some activists use free software, of course there are others who don't. Many of them are not aware of free software, don't understand it or don't sympathize with our goals and values. That's okay.

One thing that is important to activists is to efficiently share information with other activists in their group and to collaborate. Here is where free software can come into the picture. Easy way to share information and collaborate is via technology and the Internet using software. Software such as discussion forums, wikis, blogs, Planet, RSS feeds, etc. There are lots of free software for that purpose.

#

Re:Hmm

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2006 12:42 AM
Part of promoting FOSS amongst social activists is being a social activist yourself. If you're an environmentalist who uses FOSS, you're going to have credibility amongst environmentalists.

It you're a trade union activist using FOSS, you'll have credibility with trade union activists.

But if you're an "outsider looking in" it's hard to have any credibility.

The other important way to gain credibility is to use FOSS to solve problems for social activists...and FOSS does have the ability to do exactly that.

Social activists usually don't have large sums of money. FOSS often allows people to use low budget solutions to what would be expensive problems to resolve using proprietary software.

And of course there is the issue of "ethics". I've often used Richard Stallman's excellent analogy which compares the freedoms people have to share and change recipes with the freedom people have to share and change software. When you explain things in a non-technical way, activists "get it". The "four freedoms" are important.

Although Richard Stallman never officially released his analogy under the GPL, I'm sure he has in spirit and I've used and adapted it accordingly with some modest success.

#

Re:Hmm

Posted by: Administrator on December 14, 2006 08:25 PM
> terrorists are some kind of activists too

Terrorists are also food eaters, but that's beside the point.

The link is interesting if they are two points on the same spectrum, but terrorism and activism are not, there is a divide between the two because one uses terror and the other doesn't.

How do you draw the line of that divide? Are there grey areas, and if so, isn't the divide meaningless?

Yes, the divide has grey areas, and no these do not make it useless. Driving while drunk is illegal. Are there grey areas? Yes. Is the law useless? No.

Life is full of grey areas, and legal and political distinctions have them too. The job of court judges is to rule where something falls within a grey area.

There will be grey areas between activism and terrorism, but everyone knows what side free software, for example, falls on. So the distinction is meaningful.

#

Agree

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2006 11:59 PM
I fully agree with you.

Terrorism is horrible. One shall never try to force their ideals on others and should never try to reach their goal or fulfill their will through terror.

#

Re:Opposites - even within F/OSS

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2006 12:02 AM
Even within the FOSS community, you have the Free Software political movement and Open Source Software development methodoligy movements joined under the common goal of premoting Free/Libra, Open Source Software.

I think FOSS is an example though. While both groups within the community are united with common goals, they are also often opposing forces discussing the same subject. The trick may be to grow the community to include social activist groups along side Free Software and Open Source groups.

But then, the article's focus is on finding commonality within the activist and geekdom worlds so my further ramblings are just repitition.

#

Re:Umm...Free Software activists *ARE* activists

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2006 04:34 AM
Yes, I did see that. How about you ask the President of the FSF or its chief lawyer and see what they say? My guess, based on my experience, is that the folks you quoted are talking about the "open source" side of "free and open source" folks. Open sourcers (ESR, for example) do tend to be pretty elitist, contrasted with RMS. Though, you've got some not-exactly-perfect apples in every bushel, so I'm sure there are a few Free Software activists that might meet your description.

Here's a good example of why I believe F/OSS isn't on some so-called "activists" agenda. I was talking with some feminist activists about F/OSS and how liberating it is, to include women (we all have the freedom, and the source code, remember), but they made it very clear that they had no interest in talking with "a man". Not with *me*, but with *any* man. However, they actively sought out *white women* to talk to about activism. I told myself, OK ladies, have it your way, and went about my business. Instead, schools/teachers--many of whom are white women, BTW--are benefiting from my activism.

Some of these "activists" that you mention need to wake up.

#

Re:Umm...Free Software activists *ARE* activists

Posted by: nanday on December 15, 2006 10:05 AM
I don't think that anyone can look at the record of Peter Brown or Henri Poole and imagine that they are open source advocates.

Anyway, a moment's thought should be enough to tell you that people who run the FSF are strong free software supporters.

Of course, that doesn't mean that they agree with everything that Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen have to say. However, if Brown and Poole weren't substantially in agreement with them, why would they work so closely with them?

#

Re:Maybe...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2006 07:04 AM
Don't waste your breath. Frapazoid is the resident troll and he has all the answers.

#

ESR is an activist

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2006 02:03 PM
ESR is an activist in promoting a liberty that many of us see as absolutely crucial. He believes that all men and women should enjoy and exercise this liberty, even in the face of an establishment in America and Europe that is continually attempting to suppress this freedom through force and intimidation. He gives freely of his time to introduce other FOSS hackers and supporters to activities involving this liberty.

<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html" title="catb.org">http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html</a catb.org>
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/geeks-with-guns/" title="catb.org">http://www.catb.org/~esr/geeks-with-guns/</a catb.org>
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/" title="catb.org">http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/</a catb.org>

I find his writings in this area inspirational.

Steve Setzer

#

ELER for the rest of us

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 20, 2007 12:07 PM
And for the rest of us, ESR provides hilarity in the form of ELER:

<a href="http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/" title="geekz.co.uk">http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/</a geekz.co.uk>

#

Our Community isn't so insular

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 18, 2006 09:48 AM
I would like to suggest that the FOSS community not only continues to expand its comfort zone and expand and evolve its message for non-technical audiences, but our community now also attracts non-technical people (lawyers, artists, musicians) so the message of FOSS and its applicability to activists is growing rapidly. There are parts of the community that should never be bothered by this as they are focused on what they are doing, and contributing to FOSS in the way they know how, however there are now a lot of advocates of FOSS and message translators taking FOSS to new audiences, so those people can do what they know how, namely to expand our audience and the use of FOSS.

I believe FOSS gives us the most relevant social evolution in a long time. A place where people from all around the globe work together cooperatively and with amazing results. A place where an individual is judged by their personal effort, and largely not their gender, age, race, religion or political standing. This is a powerful thing, and hopefully a lesson that when people agree to respect each other, they can be empowered and work towards common goals regardless of the global politics and statistics.

#

Re:Maybe...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 19, 2006 03:34 AM
How can you say FOSS with its basis on the development model has nothing to give to those who care about social issues? To me it is completely about social issues. The whole idea is about sharing information and collaboration, and because of this, the software is within reach to those who cannot possibly hope to afford proprietry software and the latest hardware to run it.

#

steaming load of turd

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 20, 2007 12:28 PM
FOSS does operate under a decentralized kind of a "developer democracy", but if you don't have the skills, you aren't a "citizen."


What a steaming load of turd. There are many ways to contribute to the free software movement, development is just one of them

#

practically answers its own questions

Posted by: Administrator on December 14, 2006 03:05 AM
Fioretti notes that "while the groups I addressed mostly ignored me or agreed I am right,
80% of the reactions from the FOSS world were not simply negative, but filled with hatred and/or bigotry." Most of the reactions, he said, amounted to either a fear that the Scouts or Christians would hijack the FOSS movement, or accusations that these groups were bigots or racists. Fioretti concludes that "the FOSS community, which is proud to be tolerant, modern, liberal, and freedom-loving, contains a lot of bigots and terribly narrow-minded people."


Although I would take exception to "freedom-loving" when so many of the "enlightened" FOSS developers align themselves with the freedom-haters (viz. China, Iran, Hamas, North Korea, Turkey...)

#

Maybe...

Posted by: Administrator on December 14, 2006 04:21 AM
Maybe FOSS isn't so popular with moral\ethical activist people because the main people who benefit are large companies that don't want to pay for commercial software.

For most common people, computer software just isn't that important and when it is most people actually will just pirate it. Just about everyone has a Windows 98 or 2000 disk they just copy around. Everyone does it and nobody cares, and Microsoft won't raid your house unless you're some jerk who's trying to sell the disks or unless you're a large company with some cheap managers.

A lot of activist are just plain more concerned with trivial things like, having thousands of people die in a war, or abortion rights, or abortion wrongs, or... You know. Things more important than freedom from a working video driver.

And what is there to really take a stance on? The following things can be said about FOSS:

a) It exists, period.
b) It gets used when it's appropriate.
c) It's main opposition is it's competitors on the market.
d) For people who care, it's a perfectly viable option.
e) There are many very large companies pimping it.

What sort of schizoid can't understand this?

#

Re:Maybe...

Posted by: Administrator on December 14, 2006 07:42 AM
What do you mean it gets used when it's appropriate? When wouldn't it be appropriate?
I think you're forgetting about the F in FOSS. It doesn't only benefit companies, especially in the case of copyleft, it benefits all users by giving them freedom. I really don't think open-source has anything to give to people who care about social issues. While according to the OSI there are guidelines open-source software must follow, the whole movement is more focused on the development model. What good is this to moral/ethical activists?

#

And now the real world ...

Posted by: Administrator on December 14, 2006 08:09 AM
Sorry, I work in two activist organisations in Australia as an applications developer. One client is a green political organisation and the other an environmental pressure group. Both use large amounts of FOSS.

#

meritocracy

Posted by: Administrator on December 14, 2006 05:43 AM
Most social activists are uncomfortable with the "meritocracy" (for lack of a better word) that FOSS operates under.

This isn't to criticize those activists, but their purpose is largely to make sure that all people, even if they don't have the skills/talent to have a decent income, still have some diginity in life.

FOSS does operate under a decentralized kind of a "developer democracy", but if you don't have the skills, you aren't a "citizen."

Again, not to criticize, the FOSS model does benefit the community as whole. But the world view of FOSS activists and social activists is totally different.

#

Opposites

Posted by: Administrator on December 14, 2006 10:54 PM
FOSS and social activism are two different, incompatible ideologies.

The FOSS community represents voluntary cooperation and a movement to protect and expand freedom. Social activism on the other hand generally seeks state-forced socialism which is the antithesis of freedom.

FOSS is very tolerant and yes, even includes Boy Scouts and religious people. Social activists are usually secular progressives who are very intolerant of those who do not agree with their ideas. The free and volutary nature of FOSS creates a meritocracy. Projects which create compelling software will flourish. Those that don't won't. Most social activist loathe the idea of any merit/reward based systems.

The two groups are very different and not very compatible.

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya