There's FLOS, and there's FLOS

I don't usually mention Tom Adelstein because I typically agree with him, and just pointing you at what he writes without adding anything seems senseless. But when I came across 'Beware of Those Calling Themselves Open Source', and given the personal context of the last few days, I have to mention it. I have to talk about it. And I have to add my own perspectives on it.

Tom makes a good point of the fact that Open Source, Free Software and tags such as [t:FLOS] and [t:FOSS] are being used, and in some cases abused, by people who sell things or market things. It's not new in the world of marketing; there was a time when anything with Linux stamped on it was hot and there was also a time when I owned a uninterruptable power supply that was not controlled by my PC, but had a 'certified for use with Microsoft Windows' stamp on it. Marketing based on accepted buzzwords is, sadly, how unscrupulous people market things. Over the last few years, I've heard about everything Open Source - from 'Open Source Politics' (do we get to take the politicians apart and see how they work?) to 'Open Source Content' - the latter just being used just last week on the Free Software Business list¹.

Even while the discussion continues on the use of the term technology activist and it's lack of clarity, it's hard to say that 'Open Source' was ever ambiguous. 'Free Software' was, mainly because RMS named it after marketers continued their historic abuse of the word, 'free'. TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Of course, on my planet you're free to eat lunch but that doesn't mean that it costs nothing. But the ambiguity persists.

Tom gave his personal context on what he wrote about:

...I remember a time when I embraced the concept of open source software. While participating on a web cast with Eric Raymond and Richard Stallman, I heard the latter person say he never worked on any open source software. At the time, I thought he was splitting hairs. Now I appreciate his perspective.

I can live with Free Software but I have some trouble with open source the way I perceive most people using the term. I see too many press releases and articles submitted here that use the term frivolously. I read those stories and roll my eyes. I'm sure we will soon see a new line of designer clothes on Rodeo Drive called open source. They will open the erogenous zones of the rich and famous even more than they do now...

Having had dinner with Tom at LinuxWorld last year, I sort of know what he's talking about. In fact, his shift doesn't seem as dramatic to me since last year we were both exploring middle ground... and were tossing around Don Marti's idea of a 'Device Driver Skunkworks for Linux' at a small hole in the wall with great food. And we also talked about the corporations taking over the Linux community get togethers...

My Personal Context

I used to consider myself a 'Free Software Foundation'. I even joined the Free Software Foundation for a year, but found that I wasn't very pleased with the direction the WSIS PCT caucus was taking or the manner in which they have been taking the direction². When I communicated with the FSF years ago to start a local chapter, they told me, 'Go ahead! - we'll support you later on in life.' RMS himself told me via email that 'the region wasn't ready'... and sadly, he's been right... but in looking at the actions of the WSIS PCT caucus, I've found that the members just don't really take input from the smaller groups. While RMS and George Greve travelled the South American continent, they didn't stop by the Caribbean. And in that way, the FSF perspective of the Caribbean seems about the same as the corporate perspective of the region. That it 'doesn't matter'. And to me, it does. Therefore, a break with the FSF seems inevitable; I doubt that they will miss my money this year... but it ain't going. You don't support me, I don't support you. I even let you off easy by not having you ship the book and electronic card that I paid for. As heard on Southpark, "Screw you guys. I'm going home!"

I am, however, still a member of the Free Software Community. To a point. And then, it's not like the Open Source part of the greater FLOS group took much initiative at the WSIS level. So I'll float in the FLOS aether.

I can advocate the GPL without the FSF, at least on my planet. People on planet FSF may disagree.:-) At the end of the day, though, the GPL is just a license; it is not a copyright itself. Surprisingly, many developers and people high in meritocracies can't tell the difference. And that's really the key when it comes to technology and innovation. Because I let you use my car doesn't mean that you own my car. Because I let you watch my television doesn't mean that you own my television. And just because I let you use the source code of something I write doesn't mean that I've given up ownership (unless released to the public domain or under a BSD license or similar license). And that's at the core of business models. And that is the core of what Tom is really writing about... it's not the license you use; it's really the way the copyright holder decides to use what he/she/it owns. The problem is usually associated with corporations, instead of creators, holding copyrights.

But at the end of the day, FLOS is a means to an end. It means nothing if it means just selling something; if it does - stand in line for your marketing dole. Dilution of meaning is a dangerous thing; this is exactly what is happening with the phrase 'Open Source'. But when you have money behind something, you have financial inertia - and as long as the financial inertia doesn't take from the community inertia, everything is fine. Yet for some time, the financial inertia has been taking from the community just as much as the generation of the 60s has been leveraging the 60s for financial gain.

Beware hippies who aren't hippies, beware FLOS that isn't FLOS, and beware the businesses who parade as community. Or the dragons will eat you up with ketchup that they sell you.

¹ On my planet, we call it Open Content. It's shorter, simpler and much more user-friendly.
² Just because I disagree with things doesn't mean that they are wrong; in fact the most disagreement I have with things is when I believe that they are almost right.