Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Deliberately removing opensourcesurveys.

Richard Stallman writes:

 > GNU Emacs is part of the GNU Project, a project with the goal of
 > liberating the users from proprietary software.

The problem you face, of course, is that "the users" are already free
to choose to use free software for almost all purposes, but they
stubbornly refuse to do so.  Instead, they by and large *choose*
proprietary software.  I understand your frustration with that simple
fact, but that frustration doesn't give you a license to put pressure
on outsiders or to tell project members who they may or may not
cooperate with.

 > That's a free software goal which the discourse of "open source"
 > does not recognize.

That's at best nonsense.  Even your bete noir Eric Raymond in private
espouses the spread of software freedom as such as the main goal
motivating his behavior -- he's not interested in improving business
profits, particularly, though he doesn't oppose that.  Certainly the
OSI avoids talking about "freedom" in the presence of limited
dictatorships (aka "corporate IT organizations") in hopes of getting
them to consent to freedom under the guise of efficiency.

But I personally don't like that pragmatism, and that is true of
*most* of my acquaintances who style themselves "open source
advocates".  We openly advocate both freedom for users and developers,
and efficiency and quality for businesses.  The discourse of open
source does admit the goal of liberation; it's just not the single
overriding goal.

 > So it is very important for us to insist on recognition for our
 > movement.

No question about that, even given the preceding caveat.  The public
face of open source (eg, the OSI), indeed does deliberately downplay
freedom.  My beef, on *this* list, is with your *phrasing* only.

 > People who would like our cooperation in their activities should
 > recognize who we are.

Nor that, as stated.  There is a certain moral obligation on them.

But even for your own purposes, I think telling the Emacs developers
not to participate in the survey unless the researchers agree to bias
their report (by academic standards, of course by your purely
movement-centric standard it's a removal of bias) is a tactical
mistake.  First, there's a good chance that no *movements* at all were
going to be mentioned in the report.  What good does "equal time" do
you then?  You want *special* treatment.  Why not ask for it,
politely?  The movement deserves it; everybody acknowledges that
without the free software movement, free software (according to the
definitions, equally validly called "open source software") would
almost surely be far less widespread.  And, as in this case, you'll
probably get it, but without appearing to apply any undue pressure.

I believe there is similar acknowledgment of the contribution of the
free software movement to the technologies associated with distributed
development, many of which have been most actively developed and used
in free software projects (which wouldn't exist without the movement).
And *that* is a real hook for the academic researcher, as I explained.

Second, telling academics what to include in their reports doesn't
work and is likely to backfire.  Dr. Carver was very polite, but at
this stage talk is cheap.  I'm sure the researchers will follow
through in their working paper, but what about the published versions?
Eg, in industrial organization economics at least, the usual term is
now "open source", not "free", and if a referee suggests using the
more common term, with maybe a footnote for the movement, so much for
good intentions.  And even the footnote may disappear later under
page-count pressure.  Don't you think explaining *why* the movement is
important to the history and current practice of distributed
development will be more effective in the long term than a basically
empty threat?

Third, if the Emacs developers (and other members of the free software
movement) actually do refuse to participate at your behest, the
results *will* be biased against the free software point of view, both
as seen by the political movement, and in the terms of academia.  This
is the worst possible outcome from your point of view, it seems to me.

Fourth, it's going to piss off a few Emacs developers, who didn't
realize that their right to freedom of association was subject to your
political needs.

You don't need *any* of that, do you?