drewdevault.com

The-wrong-words-but-the-right-ideas.md (5091B)

---
date: 2019-09-17
layout: post
title: Don't sacrifice the right ideas to win the right words
tags: [philosophy]
---
There is a difference between free software and open-source software. But you
have to squint to see it. Software licenses which qualify for one title but not
the other are exceptionally rare.
A fascination with linguistics is common among hackers, and I encourage and
participate in language hacking myself. Unfortunately, that seems to seep into
the Free Software Foundation's message a bit too much. Let's see if any of this
rings familiar:
> It's not actually open source, but free software. You see, "open source" is a
> plot by the commercial software industry to subvert the "free software"
> movement...
> No, it's free-as-in-freedom, not free-as-in-beer. Sometimes we call it "libre"
> software, borrowing the French or Spanish word, because in English...
> What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently
> taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system...
What do all of these have in common? The audience already agrees with the
speaker on the ideas, but this becomes less so with every word. This kind of
pedantry lacks tact and pushes people away from the movement. No one wants to
talk to someone who corrects them like this, so people shut down and stop
listening. The speaker gains the self-satisfaction that comes with demonstrating
that you're smarter than someone else, but the cost is pushing that person away
from the very ideals you're trying to clarify. This approach doesn't help the
movement, it's just being a dick.
For this reason, even though I fully understand the difference between free and
open-source software, I use the terms basically interchangeably. In practice
they are effectively the same thing. Then, I preach the ideologies behind free
software even when discussing open-source software.  The ideas are what matters,
the goal is to get people thinking on your wavelength. If they hang around long
enough, they'll start using your words, too.  That's how language works.
The crucial distinction of the free software movement is less about "free
software", after all, and more about copyleft. But, because the FSF pushes
copyleft *and* free software, and because many FSF advocates are pedantic and
abrasive, many people check out before they're told the distinction between free
software and copyleft. This leads to the listener *equivocating* free software
with copyleft software, which undermines the message and hurts both.[^1]
[^1]: For those unaware, copyleft is any "viral" license, where using copyleft code requires also using a copyleft license for your derived work.  Free software is just software which meets the [free software definition][fsd], which is in practice just about all free *and* open-source software, including MIT or BSD licensed works.
[fsd]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
This lack of tact is why I find it difficult to accept the FSF as a
representative of the movement I devote myself to. If your goal is to strengthen
the resolve and unity of people who already agree with you by appealing to
tribalism, then this approach is effective - but remember that it strengthens
the opposing tribes, too. If your goal is to grow the movement and win the
hearts and minds of the people, then you need to use more tact in your language.
Turn that hacker knack for linguistic hacking towards *this* goal, of thinking
over how your phrasing and language makes different listeners feel. The
resulting literature will be much more effective.
Attack the systems and individuals who brought about the circumstances that
frustrate your movement, but don't attack their victims. It's not the user's
fault that they were raised on proprietary software. The system which installed
proprietary software on their school computers is the one to blame. Our goals
should be things like introducing Linux to the classroom, petitioning our
governments to require taxpayer-funded software to be open source, eliminating
Digital Restrictions Management[^2], pushing for right to repair, and so on. Why
is "get everyone to say 'libre' instead of 'open-source'" one of our goals
instead?
[^2]: This kind of pedantry, which deliberately misrepresents the acronym (which is rightly meant to be "Digital Rights Management"), is more productive, since the people insulted by it are not the victims of DRM, but the perpetrators of it. Also, "Digital Rights Management" is itself a euphemism, or perhaps more accurately a kind of doublespeak, which invites a similar response.
An aside: sometimes language *is* important. When someone has the wrong words
but the right ideas, it's not a big deal. When someone has the wrong *ideas* and
is appropriating the words to support them, that's a problem. This is why I
still come down hard on companies which gaslight users with faux-open software
licenses like the Commons Clause or the debacle with RedisLabs.
*Note: this article is not about Richard Stallman. I have no comment on the
recent controversies.*