open protocols and open interfaces are more important than open source
corollary: free association and free interoperation are more important than free software
@tindall I disagree with this one. Free software is about having total control and freedom over your own hardware. Make Noise Maths may be easy to integrate into a system, but you cannot change how it works if you want or need to.
@Kimimaru but you _could_ completely replace it in your system, with enough time and energy; nobody can stop you. in fact, it's ridiculously hard to find one for sale right now so i'm doing this.
whereas, for instance, you cannot completely replace Adobe products even with indefinite time and engineering resources because they own patents on components critical to interoperability
of course free and open to interoperation would be the ideal, but if i have to pick one i prefer interoperable.
@vandys I didn't say that open source _isn't_ important, just that open interfaces and protocols have a higher impact. I still run Linux, Firefox, LibreOffice, etc, and FOSS everything on my VPS.
@haitch Sarcasm is unhelpful. If you read the thread, you'll note that I call out exactly this kind of expansive and rapidly evolving API surface as a way to stifle innovation as well.
@tindall I've just read the thread.
I'm still unconvinced that proprietary software treated as a black box does anything to advance the ultimate goal of having a read/write system accessible by everyone.
By definition, it doesn't.
@sh Webkit originated in the KDE project KHTML. It was FOSS before Apple started Webkit. (and in turn, Google expanded on it, adding V8 and a host of other things)
@sh That doesn't fix the web, the web is still fundamentally broken if it allows for something like Facebook to be created.
@sh I couldn't disagree more.
I'm sorry, it would take me an endless stream of toots to explain why. You can find more in the historical discussion about these matters on this account going three years back or so.
We're not starting from the same frame of reference and there's an awful lot of information that you don't have available, it's simply not possible to discuss the complexity of this problem in lack all that information.
@tindall I disagree, simply because any proprietary software can be changed (or taken away) by its copyright holder at any time, unilaterally, pulling the carpet out from under anyone who's implemented the open protocols or interfaces. That's a fundamental power imbalance. More on that: https://davelane.nz/proprietary
If we cannot communicate, we have nothing.
The tools we use for communication are less relevant, and can be varied, as long as they are intelligible.
The flip side however is that it's often Open Source that promotes protocols & interfaces in practice; however all too often these are de facto standards originating from proprietary software.
I don't know if your note is related to that one, but both of you are saying the same thing. ( PS : I haven't read the paper linked to in that note yet; I've downloaded it for later though ).
And I agree too. To add to that argument, here's another paper that I've read in the past that is along the same lines : https://knightcolumbia.org/content/protocols-not-platforms-a-technological-approach-to-free-speech