On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 13:37:01 +1030, Simon Lees wrote:
On 3/17/22 09:30, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 22:57:55 +1030, Simon Lees wrote:
Like Richard I don't really think this sort of political activism is the current role of the openSUSE project but I think its a good thing that we support organizations such as FSFE who's roll it is to look at such things. I'd also be happy if a vote of members found that we should adjust our role / vision to include such things.
I think there is an element of open source software that is inherently political - the idea of "free as in freedom, not as in beer" is arguably inherently a political statement.
Maybe, but it doesn't have to be in all the cases where i'm using open source software i'm doing so because its the best tool for the job, similarly there are many places where you can write a business case suggesting it might be the best thing to use. Personally I have no issues choosing to use Proprietary software when I feel it is the right tool for the job which is certainly the case for some of the things I do and at the end of the day thats really what user freedom is the freedom for someone to choose what they feel is the best tool for the job.
Agreed, but that concept of not just being free to use opens source software but also the freedom to modify it is a core concept in the free software movement that we're all a part of. This is part of the DNA of the open source/free software movement.
We talk (in the open source/free software community) about "free as in freedom, not as in beer" specifically about the fact that it's not about cost. It's about the freedom to modify code to suit our specific needs. It's about the freedom to redistribute that code.
What good is that freedom if the hardware manfuacturers make it difficult to easily use free (as opposed to 'gratis') software? It's great if I can, if I have the skills (I don't) create a driver for a piece of hardware that I purchased that only has a Windows driver available, if I can't load that kernel module in the kernel I'm using, or if I can't even use Linux because the hardware is locked down to the point that I can't even install Linux?
What is the point of a free app that perfectly fits my needs if the operating system requirements cannot be met because the platform is restricted to the point of being unusable for the OS?
These are, to me, important questions, and things that I don't think the project should stay silent on (again, whether it's the board who takes up the mantle or a group of interested members is less relevant to me - though there is something more powerful about the elected board representing those ideals as opposed to 'random group of members', but that's a different discussion and would, as Richard points out, constitute a shift in the board's function.)