Just realized we have a term to describe behaviors like calling nonfree software "open source" (like redislabs and it's imitators), or borrowing from creative commons to name a nonfree license "the commons clause", or designing self-serving software which is open source but lacking freedom in important ways (like signal)

Let's start calling this stuff "nonfree gaslighting"

Similar: corporate gaslighting

Microsoft pretending Windows incorporating ads and spyware is good for the customer, Shell trying to convince us they're into green tech now, Oracle doing literally anything

Corporate doublespeak is a related concept but doesn't clearly state the harmful intent and results

Another example is Discord "servers"

@kaniini hm, I think "gaslighting" is more evocative. *washing is more vague and linguistically speaking the listener may not be a victim of it

@thufie @sir it's just as much of a server as a VPS is a server

@ben @sir that's giving them too much credit. It is a fucking chatroom.

@ben @sir it is as much a server as a squarespace webpage is a webserver

@thufie @sir Guild Wars 2 servers are orthogonal to actual servers

@sir oh man I see this a lot when Discord users try out Matrix and get confused about what a "server" is

@sir signal clients are free and open source software and the signal itself is a proprietary service. The signal clients are mostly useless and worthless without the service. It's better do not focus only on software licenses but ask which key part does a product or a service does actually provide and is it free or not.

@sir What do you think of licenses like @thufie's CNPL that aim at giving real individuals freedom within a moral framework without allowing exploitation from corporations

@dev_ponies @thufie I don't wish to get into any more detail than to express strong disagreement with this approach

@dev_ponies @thufie and perhaps to say that this is a solution looking for a problem, in my opinion.

@sir @dev_ponies that's fair, I think we're a while away from seeing any kind of scenario where the CNPL in particular sees an actual, practical application. I just made that variant of the NPL as a nod to the CSL and in hope that maybe I am wrong and it might be useful to a software development cooperative making public software (rather than acting as corporate consultants) I'm unaware of.

The NPL is more likely to actually see applications and designed as a solution to an actual problem in the FLOSS community. Dealing with how the definition of software freedom has deviated from the original goals (if you were to take free software, free society, at face value).

@sir help me since I'm just a little teapot: what's the problem with the 3clause#BSD #license (#redis)? afais **#enterprise** license (RSAL) doesn't contain the phrase "#opensource".

@grin redis*labs* uses their own nonfree source-available license. They took a while to remove "open source" from all of their marketing material (like several months"

@sir so they've removed it? wha's your complaint about then? 🙂 you should be happy, right? RIGHT?

@sir teapot again here; what does "self serving" and "lacking… in important way" exactly mean regarding #signal?

@sir oh. unfortunately there was probably nothing I could agree with in your article, either the statement or the suggested effect. I've expected something deeper than google(-play) bashing. 🙄

@sir I've made comparisons between apps providing various level of security, privacy, anonimity, reliability and usability and I could say bad things about signal and others, but your blog haven't showed me problems, just your opinions. It's fine, but I kinda expected deeper. Google (GCM) bashing is too simpleton to me, sorry.

There is already a name for this, I can't remember it right now.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!