Solaris

Danijel Orsolic (Libervisco of The Libervis Network) and I were having a chat yesterday, inspired by his article "Merging Open Source and Free Software".

Generally, he feels that it's time to return to using the Free Software moniker instead of Open Source, and create an organization called "The Free Software Business Initiative" to (like Bruce Perens's original goal) enlighten business to why freedom is important. While I agree that it is important for show businesses why freedom is important, I disagree with his hope of "merging" Open Source into Free Software.

Why?

Because people who use the term "Open Source" have rejected the freedom aspects of the software. They rejected the ethical issues attached with restricting users with non-free software. To them, it's not a matter of freedom. Just like the people who use Windows, blissfully unaware that they could be doing better. "Open Source" advocates are no more for the cause of Free Software than Microsoft itself. They, like Microsoft, sometimes release Free Software. They, like Microsoft, seem to believe that Free Software and business can't work together. They, like Microsoft, do NOTHING to further freedom for the sake of freedom.

I already hear Libervisco saying "But Open Source OSes bring users to freedom." It's the "adoption" arguement which I've always found to be faulty. There are those who believe that the more people adopting GNU/Linux, the more potential people there are who will come to value freedom. On the surface, this makes sense, it's playing the odds, essentially. However, this view fails to take in to account "the other side". For every person now using GNU/Linux that MIGHT come to Freedom, you've got another person vehemently arguing how "Linux shouldn't be political". GNU/Linux adoption, at the very least, merely adds numbers to both sides of a "war" that's existed since 1991.

Admittedly, I'm a rather black-and-white thinker. I couldn't really grasp WHY encouraging Free Software use on Vista helped... How you could care about freedom and STILL use a non-free OS baffled me. But the more I think on it, that's the BEST way to advocate Free Software. When you make it a "Linux" thing, people sometimes become resistant. Having worked in the "enterprise sector" I found that change is slow. Often, change is scourned, simply because it is change. But even in people's homes, change is frowned upon, except by a small core of people... The people who have already made a change for freedom.

For years I've been advocating people switch to GNU/Linux by explaining how they're being restricted and the benefits of Freedom. Some have switched, some haven't. Those that HAVE switched all gained an appreciation for freedom. However, I'm now feeling as if I could be doing more to spread Freedom - by focusing on Windows users and Mac users. Spread freedom has ALWAYS been what I've advocated, not "adopt Linux".

There are signs that I'm not the only one. Joshua Gay, the campaign director of the Free Software Foundation discussed this in the FSF Bulletin while introducing Libre Planet. By quoting the Ithaca Free Software Association's "How to spread Free Software" he covered this idea - a way to more effectively spread the ideas of Freedom which are central to the "adopt GNU/Linux and they'll learn about Freedom" concepts. Exposure to Freedom will lead to Freedom.

This is a call to Free Software advocates. Stop advocating GNU/Linux for a moment. Take a deep breath, and think about what it is that you value about your freedom. Think of the things you're able to do with Free Software. Think of the peace of mind the added privacy and control gives you. Now think of ways to help give that message to someone around you without advocating they try GNU/Linux. Is that goal viable?

Why haven't you started?