Update

open_source.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Open source (OS) is a [capitalist](capitalism.md) movement/brand forked from the
 
 Open source is unfortunately (but unsurprisingly) becoming more prevalent than free software, as it better serves [capitalism](capitalism.md) and abuse of people, and its followers are more and more hostile towards the free software movement. This is very dangerous, ethics and focus on actual user freedom is replaced by shallow legal definitions that can be bypassed, e.g. by [capitalist software](capitalist_software.md) and [bloat monopoly](bloat_monopoly.md). In a way open source is capitalism reshaping free software so as to weaken it and eventually make its principles of freedom ineffective. Open source tries to shift the goal posts: more and more it offers only an illusion of some kind of ethics and/or freedom, it pushes towards mere partial openness ("open source" for proprietary platforms), towards high complexity, inclusion of unethical business-centered features ([autoupdates](autoupdate.md), [DRM](drm.md), ...), high interdependency, difficulty of utilizing the rights granted by the license, exclusion of developers with "incorrect" political opinions or bad brand image etc. In practice open source has become something akin a mere **brand** which is stick to a piece of software to give users with little insight a feeling they're buying into something good -- this is called **[openwashing](openwashing.md)**. This claim is greatly supported by the fact that corporations such as [Microsoft](microsoft.md) and [Google](google.md) widely embrace open source ("Microsoft <3 open source", the infamous [GitHub](github.md) acquisition etc.).
 
-One great difference of open source with respect to free software is that **open source doesn't mind proprietary dependencies and only "partially open" projects** (see also [open core](open_core.md)): [Windows](windows.md) only programs or [games](game.md) in [proprietary](proprietary.md) engines such as [Unity](unity.md) are happily called open source -- this would be impossible in the context of free software because as [Richard Stallman](rms.md) says software can only be free if it is free as a whole, it takes a single proprietary line of code to allow abuse of the user. The "open source" communities nowadays absolutely **don't care a bit about freedom or ethics** (the majority of open source supporting zoomers most likely don't even know there was ever any connection), many "open source" proponents even react aggressively to bringing the idea of [ethics](ethics.md) up. "Open source" communities use locked, abusive proprietary platforms such as [Discord](discord.md), Google cloud documents and [Micro$oft's](microsoft.md) [GitHub](github.md) to create software and collaborate -- users without Discord and/or GitHub account often aren't even offered a way to contribute, report bugs or ask for support. There are many "open source" projects that are just meant to be part of a mostly proprietary environment, for example the [Mangos](mangod.md) implementation of [World of Warcraft](wow.md) server, which of course has to be used with the proprietary WoW client and with proprietary server assets, which gives Blizzard (the owner of WoW) complete legal control over any server running on such an "open source" server (such servers always only rely on Blizzard temporarily TOLERATING their small noncommercial communities, despite Blizzard having taken some of them down with legal action) -- calling such a project "free software" in this context would just sound laughable, so they rather call it "open source", i.e. "no, there is no freedom, but the source is technically open". Lately you will even see more and more people just calling any software "open" as long as some part of its source code is available for viewing on GitHub, no matter the license or any other considerations.
+One great difference of open source with respect to free software is that **open source doesn't mind proprietary dependencies and only "partially open" projects** (see also [open core](open_core.md)): [Windows](windows.md) only programs or [games](game.md) in [proprietary](proprietary.md) engines such as [Unity](unity.md) are happily called open source -- this would be impossible in the context of free software because as [Richard Stallman](rms.md) says software can only be free if it is free as a whole, it takes a single proprietary line of code to allow abuse of the user. The "open source" communities nowadays absolutely **don't care a bit about [freedom](freedom.md) or [ethics](ethics.md)** (the majority of open source supporting zoomers most likely don't even know there was ever any connection), many "open source" proponents even react aggressively to bringing the idea of [ethics](ethics.md) up. "Open source" communities use locked, abusive proprietary platforms such as [Discord](discord.md), Google cloud documents and [Micro$oft's](microsoft.md) [GitHub](github.md) to create software and collaborate -- users without Discord and/or GitHub account often aren't even offered a way to contribute, report bugs or ask for support. There are many "open source" projects that are just meant to be part of a mostly proprietary environment, for example the [Mangos](mangod.md) implementation of [World of Warcraft](wow.md) server, which of course has to be used with the proprietary WoW client and with proprietary server assets, which gives Blizzard (the owner of WoW) complete legal control over any server running on such an "open source" server (such servers always only rely on Blizzard temporarily TOLERATING their small noncommercial communities, despite Blizzard having taken some of them down with legal action) -- calling such a project "free software" in this context would just sound laughable, so they rather call it "open source", i.e. "no, there is no freedom, but the source is technically open". Lately you will even see more and more people just calling any software/project "open" as long as some part of its source code is [available](source_available.md) for viewing on GitHub, no matter the license or any other considerations (see e.g. "open"geofiction etc.).
 
 The open source definition is maintained by the [Open Source Initiative](osi.md) (OSI) -- they define what exactly classifies as open source and which [licenses](license.md) are compatible with it. These licenses are mostly the same as those approved by the [FSF](fsf.md) (even though not 100%). The open source definition is a bit more complex than that of free software, in a nutshell it goes along the lines: