The movement towards free and open source software was created in no small part do to activists with a very strong ideology. Open source would not exist to the same extent without the ideology espoused by the FSF. The problem is that abandoning a key tenant of the free software movement, neutrality towards different uses (part of freedom 0 of the free software definition), does far more harm than good and contravenes FLOSS ideology.
> The movement towards free and open source software was created in no small part do to activists with a very strong ideology
They did have a strong ideology and they worked towards building the world they wished to see. Not by breaking existing things to virtue signal their support for "the current thing"
And then all of the effort spent on "building the world they wished to see" gets used to also build a world that goes against everything they wished, against their ideology. Due to openness of their efforts they also don't have an option on influencing that, unlike commercial products who can simply stop doing business with precise companies/people/territories. What if the very idea of open source gets used against itself? What would you advise those people to do? Shut up about "the current thing"?
> The movement towards free and open source software was created in no small part do to activists with a very strong ideology.
This is true, and an argument that keeps getting repeated, but isn't the same issue. The politics of open source software are about software. How it's made and how it's used.
The modern push is about injecting outside ideology into software (and everywhere else). Bringing geo, gender, and racial politics into software is a whole lot different than software politics in software.
Either you or I misread GP, because I don't see any disagreement. GP points out that FLOSS movement was and is inclusive by design, while this modern development is exclusive by design against people who disagree with the person's opinions.
Yep, not disagreeing with them at all on their overall point. I just see this "FLOSS is inherently political" line floated a lot, and wanted to point out that it's a false equivalence. I probably could have made that clearer.
The movement towards free and open source software was created in no small part do to activists with a very strong ideology. Open source would not exist to the same extent without the ideology espoused by the FSF. The problem is that abandoning a key tenant of the free software movement, neutrality towards different uses (part of freedom 0 of the free software definition), does far more harm than good and contravenes FLOSS ideology.