On 5/31/17, John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
Neverminding the ridiculous length of that subject line..
I just thought an interesting thought.
First, a little context, (I know how rms feels about blockchains) I was investigating slock.it and thinking to myself "why don't they just make a hardware standard like eoma instead of closing their development and calling it open?" (Like, Pi-Top is [n]ever gonna release those stl files) (I realize that's a loaded 'just' cause it sounds easy, but is one of the most difficult possible)
Then, it dawned on me: Lulzbot doesn't do that.. Wait, Lulzbot exclusively uses open software in their development.. Then *bam* like a boulder (nothing to do with Lulzbot): GPL-violations, improper GUI training, failing to extend using APIs/Addons, failing to bugsmash/'track-issues', failing to participate in mailing-lists and irc, failing to simply fork when development goals conflict, planned esoteric-ism and/or planned obsolescence, failure to secure clientèle data by using fully free systems (when relevant), failure to participate-in and be-aware-of public conversations about the underlining security of said systems (when relevant), failure to disclose supplychain information/identities (when relevant), failure at general transparency.
All of these things traditionally go wrong with not only companies that use open source, but companies in-general.
Then, it truly truly dawned on me, free software needs standards organizations as well.