1

Topic: Liberation from vague terminology

I really think that this shall not be here:
https://www.hyperbola.info/packages/?so … p;flagged=

and I hope I will be properly understood on this forum and in this distribution.

Hyperbola maintainers are those people who decide how to describe the package. So they have chosen to copy and paste the vague terminology.

I have already go through the package descriptions and could find various examples.
https://issues.hyperbola.info/index.php … dsm=userid

There are other examples:
https://www.hyperbola.info/packages/?so … p;flagged=

Yet I am not sure what is the stand on this one here in Hyperbola. I would like to know and get feedback.

I am not really vouching that even package documentation is changed. But at least in package descriptions that could be changed.

2 (edited by zapper 2018-06-04 12:31:04)

Re: Liberation from vague terminology

I agree, open-source wording should be replaced with free software.

Always a good idea. smile

Hyperbola:

The Stable Secure Libre Arch!

3

Re: Liberation from vague terminology

Hey, I could take care of that; it's basic proofreading and doesn't require anywhere near as much knowledge of the English language as writing original documentation or translating does.

I agree that KISS descriptions would be consistent with Hyperbola's philosophy and social contract. The developers have been very busy with multiple issues lately and then there are users like myself with limited technical ability and lots of gratitude.

Fixing the descriptions is something we could do that would be actually helpful and not overly distracting to the developers. Thank you for pointing this out. More later when/if I have a clue how this can be implemented at a practical level.

4

Re: Liberation from vague terminology

Well once we find out who is PKGBUILD maintainer for those specific list of packages then it becomes easy to remedy it.

5

Re: Liberation from vague terminology

@jmarciano, thanks for reports

=-= Viva a Hyperbola ! Um chute na bunda do Systemd! =-=

6

Re: Liberation from vague terminology

jmarciano wrote:

I really think that this shall not be here:
https://www.hyperbola.info/packages/?so … p;flagged=

and I hope I will be properly understood on this forum and in this distribution.

Hyperbola maintainers are those people who decide how to describe the package. So they have chosen to copy and paste the vague terminology.

I have already go through the package descriptions and could find various examples.
https://issues.hyperbola.info/index.php … dsm=userid

There are other examples:
https://www.hyperbola.info/packages/?so … p;flagged=

Yet I am not sure what is the stand on this one here in Hyperbola. I would like to know and get feedback.

I am not really vouching that even package documentation is changed. But at least in package descriptions that could be changed.

Thank you for the report, however all packages listed here should be reported per separated to ease our development process, eg.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[openssl] vague terminology "open source" in description of package

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system … lines.html

we shall avoid vague terminology such as “open source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “open source”. eg.

Wrong:

core/openssl 1.1.0.e-1 [installed]
    The Open Source toolkit for Secure Sockets Layer and Transport Layer Security

Solution:

core/openssl 1.1.0.e-1 [installed]
    The Free Software toolkit for Secure Sockets Layer and Transport Layer Security

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 (edited by freemedia 2018-10-09 02:43:14)

Re: Liberation from vague terminology

i dont expect to change anyones position about this, but i am against it.

the reason is utterly simple (and i think, elegant.)

any time a package maintainer uses the words "free software" it means they care about your freedom. when they say "open source" it means they care about getting cozy with monopolies that dont care about your freedom.

you could really take this argument in either direction: you could say "but the hyperbola maintainers care about your freedom" (and thank you for that, by the way)

but the people who named it openssl prefer to be associated with "open source." and that is a due warning to all users, which you are removing.

"yes, but its still called openssl."

alright, youve got me there. im actually using libressl at the moment in my own distro (tada) but any time a package has "open source" in the description i get one more layer of warning about whether to trust it or not.

so i would vote (and even lose the vote) to leave that warning in. the same way i would leave the surgeon generals warning (or british equivalent, etc) on a box of cigarettes.

i know youll remove it, but i wanted to put in my dissenting opinion. i do love this forum though.

edit: also i didnt mean to reanimate a post from june, but i can delete it if you really hate it.

8

Re: Liberation from vague terminology

I understand fully what you mean.

Hyperbola is fully free software distribution according to guidlines as issued by Free Software Foundation.

Here are few more arguments that OpenSSL is free software:

According to Wikipedia, it is licensed under Apache and BSD license:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSSL

According to Wikipedia, the Apache license is permissive free software license:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License

According to Wikipedia, the BSD license is permissive free software license:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

The term "open source" is vaguely used and is dilluted over time, now for public it can mean this and that, it is bringing confusion.

The reason that I propose to change terms like "open source" is of educational character.

It is not practical reason, and it has no purpose to bring OpenSSL developers to change their opinions and their expressions.

Teaching new people about free software requires efforts, work, couriage, modifications, direction.

9 (edited by freemedia 2018-10-09 06:01:35)

Re: Liberation from vague terminology

oh yeah, i wouldnt dispute whether openssl is free software or not, 99% of the licenses overlap. except cc0, which i tend to phrase as "you had one job, karl!" its gpl compatible, the gpl is osi approved, but cc0 is rejected by osi because stupid hipster politics the day that vote happened.

and they claim to be practical!

plus a couple really stupid licenses that obviously arent free for reasons that are also obvious, but open source just hates to say "no" to anything unless its to your freedom.

10

Re: Liberation from vague terminology

Politically the group of people that started the term "open source" had their issues, I would rather say they were corrupt as they accommodated the issues of corporations, not the issue of freedom. There is nothng wrong to promote freedom. And then, over the years, we could see corporations abusing the "open source" terminology to push again the software that controls the user and not giving freedom to the user to control software and hyr computing.

Paradoxically, the term "open source" became popular during during the adoption of Netscape Public License: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-sour … _as_a_term which was then disapproved by OSI, and approved by FSF. Funny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Public_License

We are here in business of free software. This term was not dilluted over the time, and has its direction, clear meaning, and is easier conveyed to public.

Compare it to "open source" which is vague, and which relates not only to software, but to electronics, food, beverages, digital content, medicine, science, engineering, robotics, transport, fashion, religion, journalism, and so on and so on, and nothing of it makes the freedom issues more clear.

So we get products which are maybe "open" but not free as in freedom.

We get products that may appear to be free but are not free.

And we get the culture without sharing.

That it is so, the article here will clearly show intentions of "open source": https://opensource.com/business/16/11/o … e-software

where it says that freedom is not the target, it is target to achieve higher efficiency and agility in creating software products and services.

So if freedom is not their main goal, why would Hyperbola as fully free, relating to freedom, support that political term "open source"?!

Without the "enforced sharing" as written in that article, there would be no Linux kernel today. Linux kernel was initially written as proprietary software, with or without source publicly available, but it was proprietary. Torvalds have licensed it under the GNU GPL once he has seen Dr. Stallman talking in his university in Finland.

At that time it was not free software, even though the source code was available.

One may see in this article that not the freedom but vendors are preferred:
https://opensource.com/business/16/11/o … e-software

where it says:

"The point of free software was to undermine the existing order of proprietary Unix vendors and enforce principles of sharing."

and where it says:

"Open source processes could give vendors a competitive advantage, if used properly, and open source principles could allow projects to function more efficiently."

so is the software all about vendors? And helping vendors?

Obviously, clearly, one can see that "open source" political movement has different goals than those people of free software community.

Distinction is helpful, while we are both using each other resources to strive towards our different goals.

And we teach people about free software and sharing and helping others to share with others.

11

Re: Liberation from vague terminology

wow, and it says youre a "beginner" with 12 posts. i guess a few of us are new.

but that was a really awesome argument there. ill leave my point up for comparison, but i am sincerely impressed. especially when i counted the article as part of your argument.

i hope you realise i was sympathetic to most of what you said already. what i was on the fence about is whether the term "open source" should be "left up as a warning," basically. but i think your post goes a long way towards stating the contrary. possibly even farther than it needs to, but not in a bad way. not bad at all!