I am NOT an open source enthusiast


Alright, just a short blog post for today. I am NOT an open source enthusiast. Every time someone calls me a "open source" enthusiast, I want to shoot someone. I do not support the open source movement and I do not support open source software, or as a lot of people will say "FOSS".

Goal of open source software

The goal of open source is to provide the source code for ease of collaboration and for vulnerabilities to be discovered. Big companies can then take that project, which is almost always licenced under a cuck license, and release it in the form of nonfree software with additional spyware added on. The most notable example of this is the Google Chrome web browser, where Chromium is the "open source" variant of the software, only without the spyware and with the freedom to modify and distribute copies of the software.

Goal of free software

The goal of free/libre software on the other hand is freedom for all users of the software. These are:

  1. The freedom to run the program
  2. The freedom to study the program
  3. The freedom to distribute the program to help others
  4. The freedom to modify and distribute copies of the program

While free software is often copyleft, meaning you cannot fork the project and relicense it under a nonfree license, stripping away the freedom from the users of that fork, free software is not always copyleft. Therefore open source software is almost always compatible with free software. If you are using open source software you are most likely using free software.


Open source software that meets the free software freedom criteria is just as ethical as free software. The main problem is you're sending the wrong message to people. But the software is still free as in freedom.

To be clear, I do believe nonfree software (software that doesn't meet the four essential freedoms) is unethical. But I do not dislike anyone for using nonfree software. It's kind of difficult to avoid using nonfree software in this day and age. Respect to those who are able to use 100% free software (going as far as using a libre kernel and free BIOS) though.

You are not unethical for using nonfree software. The unethical practice is actually licensing that software under a nonfree license and releasing the software to people.

Same thing?

A lot of people will say "what's the difference" or "who cares" when I mention I don't care for open source software. The reason it matters is because when you talk to people who may or may not care about freedom, you should be telling them that you care about freedom, not price.

FOSS stands for "Free and Open Source software" but I cannot stand this term, because it implies that the software is open source and free as in price, meaning you don't have to pay any money for it. Most people when they hear this term, both tech enthusiasts and normies think it means you get it for free. This is the problem. The message we should send is that the software is free as in freedom, not that it doesn't cost any money.


I am not for the open source movement. I do not support open source software for the sake of collaboration or for security vulnerabilities to be discovered. I support free software because free software respects users' four essential freedoms. Everything open source provides free software also provides. The main difference is the goal of the movement. I do not care for the open source movement and their motives. I care about the FSF's definition of free software and freedom for all users.

The reason "open source" is more popular now is because it's more corporate- friendly. Companies do not care about your freedom, but they certainly do care about unpaid work and security audits. Companies are against free software because they are against user freedom.

That's it for today. Have a good rest of your day!