The name is source available and you don't need to have a movement for that. I don't see any schims here, essentially it is a more transparent version of freemium where you also can see the code and that's all decades old.
Source transparency? Maybe we can popularize the idea that it's considered an altruistic act for tech media companies to escrow their source with academic organizations? This would help academics and museums preserve the exact media experience of each generation.
From the article: Somewhere along the way, Open Source ran into a problem that many movements face: the members of the movement no longer understood the ideology that created the movement in the first place.
Why shouldn't the values change? If people share source for prestige/recognition, to benefit from "more eyeballs" and to share the maintenance expense of shared infrastructure/libraries -- what's wrong with that? Society still benefits. The world isn't the same place where Stallman first thought of GNU. Why should the exact same ideology apply? What's wrong with some evolution?
"How could you treat a culture as separate from its connections? How could you draw a circle around it and say, “This, this is the culture, and so it will remain?” A culture wasn’t a final product, like a cup of coffee in alabaster, or a sordid climax in an execution alley. People didn’t have culture, they did culture. In fact, culture was like a mill: it accepted knowledge and people, and it changed them in certain ways, and it even redesigned itself in the process. Change was intrinsic to culture."
Source transparency? Maybe we can popularize the idea that it's considered an altruistic act for tech media companies to escrow their source with academic organizations? This would help academics and museums preserve the exact media experience of each generation.
From the article: Somewhere along the way, Open Source ran into a problem that many movements face: the members of the movement no longer understood the ideology that created the movement in the first place.
Why shouldn't the values change? If people share source for prestige/recognition, to benefit from "more eyeballs" and to share the maintenance expense of shared infrastructure/libraries -- what's wrong with that? Society still benefits. The world isn't the same place where Stallman first thought of GNU. Why should the exact same ideology apply? What's wrong with some evolution?