[Themaintainers] The historical (and ethical) context of the Open Source movement

[Bastien]

Hi Don,

thanks for sharing this article. I've only skimmed through it, I will
perhaps post more thoughtful comments when I really dive into it.

In the meantime, I would like to mention this list of references that
you might find interesting:

https://bzg.github.io/opensource-challenges/

(People on this list can contribute to it by sending me references by
email or by a PR here: https://github.com/bzg/opensource-challenges)

My background is this: I studied philosophy of technology, and I was
surprised to discover that my teachers did not know a thing about the
software patent debate that was raging at the time (~2000) - for them
medecine patent was the main focus, and "software" was just something
they did not know a thing about.  I started using GNU/Linux in 1999, I
got in touch with other hackers, we lobbied at the EU Commission to
refuse software patent (we won, thanks to a clever politician named
Michel Rocard, former prime minister of France) and then I started to
learn programming and to get more engaged into free software.

I then spent more and more time programming, became a FLOSS maintainer
in 2011 (for Emacs Org-mode), I still am.  In 2013, I identified this
problem of FLOSS maintainance: I became a dad in 2012, and I was both
financially and personnally struggling, so I tried to start a business
about crowdfunding open source projects (crowdfunding was the buzzword
then), but I had to stop this because I didn't have any resource.  One
of the spin-off of my activities then is https://www.fundthecode.org -
a social event where we match maintainers with corporate sponsors, and
let the audience donate the money of the sponsors to the free software
maintainers.  This is nice but still a benevolent action, which I try
to delegate now.

Now on my main input.

I see two debates converging: the one about ethics and FLOSS licences,
and the on how to build sustainable digital "commons".

What strikes me is that researchers on the "commons" are *very*
critical about the FLOSS movement, saying that open source "won" and
that open source is not a proper "common" -- one of these researchers
calls it a "common of the Capital".  When I mention the fact that my
own activities are based on moral motivations (I mean: I _could_ not
share my code and selfishly keep it for me or try to run business on
my close private code) they say "Nah! there is nothing moral in what
you do."  Which I find a bit annoying :)

The same researchers are pushing for ethical licenses, the same way
they push for new sustainable (digital or not digital) commons.

But they fight for the proper definition of a common (e.g. for Lessig
the digital commons are freely accessible online resources, which
sounds heretic to the people following Elinor Ostrom's definition, and
some researchers are now also fighting Ostrom's definition because it
is too focused on shared "assets", while what is shared among
commoners can also be... something else than material or digital
"assets".)

Also they don't know the innards of the free software licenses very
well, so they don't listen when we answer "ethical licenses won't
work": they take it as a will to stick to an apolitical view of open
source where as I, for example, stick to a politically engaged view of
free software, following FSF commitment to change the society.

The strange result is this: every politician now speaks of "digital
sovereignty", which most people interpret this as "well, sharing is
dangerous and *maybe* China's modal of walled garden is not so bad
after all... so why go open source?" and this position gains more and
more traction thanks to the unexpected help of the researchers on the
commons, who basically push a vision where people only share... with
like-minded people, with the excuse to fight against the free-rider
problem and the new tragedy of the commons.

My stand is this: open source without free software would not exist.
It is not because open source has "immoral" consequences that it is
not grounded on moral values and gestures.  It is better to live in
the current world, where free software and open source are a thing,
than in a world of closed source only.  The freedom we should focus
on is that of the users, and sharing should really be "caring".

But we need to renew our ideological framework to help everyone
understand why FLOSS is good for everyone's freedom and I think
the focus on FLOSS maintainers is key in renewing this "framework".

Sorry that I've been a bit long!

Best,

-- 
 Bastien