Free Software is an abject failure. It may sound like a good concept on its face—especially with the kind of language often used to describe the movement and its opponents—but, when put under scrutiny, the institutions and practices that make up the Free Software movement fundamentally fail at their stated goals and harm the software ecosystem as a result.
The author claims Free Software is a failure, arguing it hampers collaboration and fails its goals despite its ideals.
Author defines Free Software as Copyleft-licensed, distinct from Open Source.
Author once supported Free Software but now rejects the movement.
Claims Free Software causes harm and is legally ineffective.
Summarised automatically by AI from the original article by Hacker News. AI can make mistakes, so check the original for details.
Based on certain kinds of feedback I've received in response to this post (which says a lot about the current state of Free Software culture), I feel the need to say that if you disagree with what I have written, I would appreciate it if you would voice those disagreements by criticising the ideas that I've presented rather than assuming things about my character or level of experience and insulting me. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me; I appreciate having discussions in good faith, and hope that you would give me the benefit of the doubt. You might even be surprised at what I actually believe.
In this post, I use the term "Free Software" to mean software licensed with Copyleft licenses, and to explicitly differentiate it from permissively-licensed "Open Source" software (which is what the Free Software Foundation and Co. also do).
Read the full story on Hacker NewsThat's the opening of the story. The full piece is published by Hacker News.
