Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
3 points by shader 10 days ago | link | parent

Yes, that's what I assumed as well; I just thought it would be an interesting discussion, and was wondering if there might not be other reasons for choosing that particular repository.

I suppose for me, the distinction between an 'open source' repository (Gitlab) and an 'ethical(?)' repository wasn't a very important one, so I was curious for the motivation behind it.





1 point by hjek 6 days ago | link

I think free (or "open source") and ethical mean the same in most cases.

Exceptions might include something like Facebook, which is technically somehow usable w/o non-free JS when using their basic mobile web page, but where the company is still engaging in other unethical activities, like selling user data to sway elections.

Or something like Amazon, where you might possibly be able to buy something w/o non-free JS (haven't checked), but where the treatment of their employees is unacceptable.

But, I think, when we're talking git hosting sites, there's no difference?

But FSF considers Gitlab ethical enough for hosting GNU packages[0].

[0]: https://www.fsf.org/news/gnu-releases-ethical-evaluations-of...

reply

3 points by i4cu 6 days ago | link

As I understand it - the 'Open Source' movement concerns itself with improving the software by making the code openly accessible, where as the 'Free Software' movement concerns itself with a fighting for users rights (i.e. having the freedom to access, modify and distribute the code in a manner that empowers the user).

And so, an 'Open Source' repository holds code that is openly accessible for the purpose of improving the software. Where as an 'Ethical Repository' holds code that is graded by its' ability to guarantee users rights according to a specific set of morals (established by free software foundation). It so happens that open source repos tend to align well the ethics associated with free-software, but they should not be mistaken for each other. As an example to illustrate: If a repo SaaS were built for open source code, but restricted users from a certain country it wouldn't rank high in ethical repository grading. This is because while having the code openly accessible leans towards a Grade A rating (excellent), the restricting some users part puts it at a Grade F rating (unacceptable).

-- additional info --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

"Despite initially accepting it,[31] Richard Stallman of the FSF now flatly opposes the term "Open Source" being applied to what they refer to as "free software". Although he agrees that the two terms describe "almost the same category of software", Stallman considers equating the terms incorrect and misleading.[32] Stallman also opposes the professed pragmatism of the Open Source Initiative, as he fears that the free software ideals of freedom and community are threatened by compromising on the FSF's idealistic standards for software freedom.[33] The FSF considers free software to be a subset of open-source software, and Richard Stallman explained that DRM software, for example, can be developed as open source, despite that it does not give its users freedom (it restricts them), and thus doesn't qualify as free software.[34]"

reply