<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 7:34 AM Rick Moen <<a href="mailto:rick@linuxmafia.com">rick@linuxmafia.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">And why obsess over (supposed) gaps of ideology when you actually want<br>
the exact same outcomes as the other guys? Aren't outcomes what matter?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree outcomes are what matters. This isn't a variation of the Open Source vs Free Software debate.</div><div><br></div><div>The "Open Source" label is presumed to bring us to the outcomes I'm interested in, and I believe there was no question of that truth when the OSI was founded. That potential for shared outcomes is what I'm not as confident about any more. If OSI decides to approve licenses which will lead to an incompatible outcome, then what we lost was the utility of that label and advocacy behind it as a short-form to use while advocating for that outcome.</div><div><br>The problem is not unique to the OSI, as the FSF has also approved the Affero clauses being added to the GPL. While I believe trying to restrict mere use of software is far worse than restricting private modification, they are both in a direction I feel is harmful to software transparency/accountability/freedom.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I use the term FLOSS when talking to politicians as the specific groups aren't what matters to me. In that we also agree.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div>