[Fs-phil] Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Per Glenn's suggestion, moving to an alternative venue.
Grovel the List-* headers for how to subscribe, etc.

Jambunathan K writes:

 > Lately we see more and more companies talking of "Corporate Social
 > Responsibility" and pride themselves in supporting and making a positive
 > impact on "Local Communities".

If you're talking about companies big enough to be listed on major
exchanges (NYSE, TSE, etc), this is basically good politics.  At least
where I live, though, "Corporate Social Responsibility" is better
spelled "Corporate Social Irresponsibility with Good Opportunities for
PR".  The companies throw money at advertising and pet philanthropies
of their executives, and trumpet the ecological advantages of their
products.  However, companies that do damage to the environment (Tokyo
Electric Power and TOYOTA come immediately to mind) do *not* work
reduce demand for their product.

On the other hand, there are indeed "ethical" businesses whose owners
insist on certain principles of business which are not necessarily
profit-maximizing.  The various genuine attempts at pure free software
business are one example.  Several such owners have retired early (I
believe L. Peter Deutsch of Aladdin Ghostscript, who falls into a grey
area -- few FSFers would consider him "genuine" -- managed the trick
before he turned 40).  Some ethical businesses are huge; I believe
that the largest mutual fund dedicated to investing in woman-owned-
and-run businesses now has over 10 billion dollars at its disposal.

 > I would make a reasonable assumption that a company producing a "Open
 > Source" component is very likely to depend on other "Open Source"
 > components during it's production process.

Most do, not only on components, but on tools as well.

 > Putting all the above different items together:
 > 
 > FLOSS companies has to be pressured in to act in ways that nurture the
 > ecosystem and prevented from acting in ways that is harmful to the
 > ecosystem.

I disagree.  A company dedicated to FLOSS has already forfeited
potentially large profits due to refusing to adopt an appropriate
mixed licensing scheme (Ghostscript is a well-known example of a very
profitable product based on a rather permissive mixed scheme).  They
don't need to be pressured, they need to be shown how to survive while
giving away the store.

Of the cases where Richard has pressured companies that I know of,
they basically decided that free software was a hostile environment
(!)  and went to relatively permissive non-free licenses (Aladdin
Ghostscript, several minor products that used Qt).  (Obviously I'm not
referring to successes like GNU Objective-C, where Apple was in clear
violation of the GPL.)

 > The companies have to adopt an ethical standard where part of
 > their funds for CSR program is used to fund their FLOSS peers..

Most companies involved in FLOSS as their primary software business
cannot afford a marketing department, let alone a CSR department.
Good luck on that one!

 > A common user has to be educated so that he can exert his pressure in
 > the right direction. Campaigns for boycott comes to my mind here.

We already have one of those.  It's called "the free software
movement."  It's a loser, as a boycott.

 > The citizens can also lobby with the governments and insist on their
 > governments allocating budgetary funds to FLOSS projects that the
 > governments have to come rely on.

Governments have better reason to do that (avoiding lock-in), and they
already do.  It's sad that software paid for by a government grant is
not *required* to be free software, but a very large amount of it is,
anyway.  (David's comment about orphaned free software is very
pertinent here, but it's not obvious to me that it can be avoided in
this context.)

 > As I put my thoughts down, it is becoming increasing clear that an
 > education campaign and programs like boycott or making hostile
 > takeovers a tabeau would considerably strengthen the FLOSS
 > ecosystem.

Boycotts and other restraints on trade are a non-starter in the OSS
part of the ecosystem.  *Hostile* takeovers of FLOSS products are
probably not a big problem, by the way, because it's not possible to
revoke a license on existing copies even if you acquire the full
copyright.