I think calling it libre or foss better shows that we are looking for user freedom as well as transparency, considering that companies like google are mostly associated with the phrase and if you ask people to name some open source projects, they will probably answer chromium and AOSP. so maybe it’s better to intentionally choose to say libre or foss instead of open source to make our goals and ideals clear?

    • soronixaOP
      1·
      4 years ago

      good point, there are already too many communities, but it just feels wrong to not mention the libre part of it. but yeah, I understand that dividing communities isn’t the best.

      And why the mention of vaccines ???

      well, recently (happened a few months ago I think) one of the vaccines was going to be open sourced, but the Gates foundation prevented it by making some excuses. I thought people would remember that a vaccine could be open source too, so I mentioned it. honestly I really think medicine can learn a lot from foss, imagine if we could identify the most effective vaccine with the least side effects, and produce it everywhere instead of just the companies who hold their rights making them. wouldn’t that be awesome?

      Something like Libre could exclude MIT,BSD,Apache license based software?

      if they are GPL compatible, they won’t be excluded, right?

      let’s see what others think and then make a decision :D

  • DBGamer
    4·
    4 years ago

    Absolutely it makes sense to be doing like that to clearly lay down what’s the goals are. Instead of “merely” if it open sourced or not.

    As you mentioned yourself it’s the freedom of the users that counts not if JUST the code is freely viewable and such.