zlacker

>>gnufx+(OP)
He laments that users "don't know about the freedoms we promote which are increasingly in their interest", but wasn't this the point of Open Source as compared to Free Software, to refocus the messaging from the user's freedoms to the economic benefit for companies?

The Free Software Definition mentions "user" 22 times and "freedom" 79 times, whereas the Open Source Definition has zero occurrences of these terms. It doesn't seem surprising that the user freedom message isn't getting through if you completely scrub it from the messaging.

>>ptx+a5
“Open source” is free labor for SaaS companies, while the insistence on liberal free (as in beer) licenses makes it almost impossible to build a software business in any other way by flooding the market.

SaaS is the least free model for software. You have no privacy, no control, and in most cases can’t even export your data.

Thus open source actually minimizes freedom in practice, at least for everyone other than developers.

>>api+Di
Exactly! FOSS has been the unwitting enabler behind locking people down in giant SaaS silos.

>>kazina+Am
Note that it's specifically liberal licenses - the stuff powering SaaS tends to be Apache-, MIT or similar licensed. Most of the big SaaS vendors won't touch GPL code, much less AGPL.