Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Intention-and-Vision: Difference between revisions
Add intro for donors and social entrepreneurs, link to governance |
Reorder 90s/2000s, add FSF quotes on Open Source co-optation, and AGPLv3 link |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
## The Lesson of Free Software vs. Open Source | ## The Lesson of Free Software vs. Open Source | ||
To understand the core approach of WikiDeal, we can look at a highly concrete historical example: the philosophical and academic foundation of the Free Software and Open Source movements. | To understand the core approach of WikiDeal, we can look at a highly concrete historical example: the philosophical and academic foundation of the Free Software and Open Source movements. | ||
In the 1980s, the concept of Free Software and "copyleft" was established by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman Richard Stallman]—a key founder of the movement—to guarantee users four essential freedoms. | In the 1980s, the concept of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software Free Software] and "copyleft" was established by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman Richard Stallman]—a key founder of the movement—to guarantee users four essential freedoms. This was built on a very clear citizen concern: freedom must be protected, and we must prevent it from being corrupted, misused, or circumvented by proprietary models. | ||
However, | Later, in the late 1990s, a parallel movement emerged promoting "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software Open Source]," championed by figures like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond Eric S. Raymond] (author of ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar The Cathedral and the Bazaar]'') and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perry_Barlow John Perry Barlow] (who promoted the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation Electronic Frontier Foundation] and the Open Source movement). However, within the Free Software community, there was an immediate, prescient fear that the Open Source movement—being more libertarian and business-oriented—did not sufficiently protect user freedom. Richard Stallman summarized this divide in his essay "[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software]," warning that Open Source focused merely on practical development models while ignoring the ethical imperative of defending citizens against discriminatory algorithms and locked-down ecosystems. | ||
Behind these collaborative models lay a fundamental contract, and one crucial detail—a single "comma"—made a massive difference: the strict obligation to redistribute any additions made to the code back to the entire community. | |||
This sparked a major theoretical debate in the 1990s. Eventually, the debate reached a turning point. On February 17, 1999, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Perens Bruce Perens]—who had helped found the Open Source Initiative—detached himself from the Open Source rhetoric and published a famous open letter stating: '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative#History "It's Time to Talk about Free Software Again"]''' (Original source: [https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html Debian mailing list archive]). He urged the community to return to the fundamental, radically non-discriminatory principles of Free Software. The theoretical debate was closed: true freedom required strict, non-discriminatory terms. | |||
Then came the 2000s, where the practice proved the 1990s theory right. While the citizen community had adopted Free Software, major multinational corporations clearly oriented themselves toward Open Source. They freely mixed open code with closed, proprietary code, using the "open" label to create a false climate of trust while employing abusive, discriminatory, or biased closed algorithms where it suited them. They only used openness when it served their commercial interests. | |||
Richard Stallman used a very fitting metaphor to describe this practice. He explained that mixing free software with non-free software is like offering both water and whiskey to children at school. While diversity of choice isn't inherently bad, these two options have profoundly incompatible intentions. Providing whiskey to children alters their health and their ability to learn. Similarly, introducing proprietary, data-harvesting software into public goods (like schools) fundamentally alters user freedom, exactly as major commercial platforms (like Amazon, Meta, Uber, or Airbnb)—owned by shareholders, not users—mix open and closed ecosystems to their sole advantage. | Richard Stallman used a very fitting metaphor to describe this practice. He explained that mixing free software with non-free software is like offering both water and whiskey to children at school. While diversity of choice isn't inherently bad, these two options have profoundly incompatible intentions. Providing whiskey to children alters their health and their ability to learn. Similarly, introducing proprietary, data-harvesting software into public goods (like schools) fundamentally alters user freedom, exactly as major commercial platforms (like Amazon, Meta, Uber, or Airbnb)—owned by shareholders, not users—mix open and closed ecosystems to their sole advantage. | ||
If these corporations were forced to use strictly free, copyleft licenses like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License AGPLv3] (which closed the "SaaS loophole" by requiring server-side software to remain free), they would be required to redistribute everything. This would place the dominant position back in the hands of citizens rather than a minority of investors. WikiDeal applies this exact solution in practice today: using strictly 100% Free Software (AGPLv3) and free content (CC BY-SA), as documented in our [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Libre Licensing|Systematic Libre Licensing]] policy. | |||
This concept of "radical non-discrimination"—refusing to accept even minor compromises on fundamental freedoms—is exactly what allowed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimania Wikimania], the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation Wikimedia Foundation], and the movement behind [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Wikipedia] to deploy and maintain their projects durably. They applied this strict recipe: exclusive use of free software and free content, governed by citizen agreements like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Social_Contract Debian Social Contract] and the [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct Universal Code of Conduct]. This is the exact same lens through which WikiDeal conducts its research. | This concept of "radical non-discrimination"—refusing to accept even minor compromises on fundamental freedoms—is exactly what allowed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimania Wikimania], the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation Wikimedia Foundation], and the movement behind [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Wikipedia] to deploy and maintain their projects durably. They applied this strict recipe: exclusive use of free software and free content, governed by citizen agreements like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Social_Contract Debian Social Contract] and the [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct Universal Code of Conduct]. This is the exact same lens through which WikiDeal conducts its research. | ||