With the apparent volatility that Bitcoin has, how will they decide when to cash that out? Any amount is obviously good for the FSF but maximizing the donation may be a bit tricky with the current markets.
I would expect them to do so imminently to normalize it into the budget. If someone gave them $1M worth of gold I would not expect them to sit on it (what possible use would FSF have with gold as a material?), but rather convert it into resources which then can be used to fund projects.
I wonder how easy it would be to liquidate these bitcoins? I would imagine that Joe Blow tries to liquidate the same amount, alarm bells would ring very loudly.
It refers to almost the same software. The difference is more on emphasis and what you care about than the set of software it refers to. It's about the underlying philosophy.
I say this because it's important to remember that open source is also intended to refer to a strict definition that also addresses user freedoms. The open source definition for example forbids discriminating against fields of endeavour and says the software should be usable for any purpose. "Open source" doesn't just mean visible source.
OpenBSD calls itself free software despite being opposed to copyleft, for example. Open source and free software are more allies than enemies, and I think it's important to remember that both want user freedom. They just express it in different ways and to a different degree.
> and I think it's important to remember that both want user freedom
As a free software activist, I haven't found that to be true. Remember that the term "open source" was created explicitly to sell the development methodology to businesses without talking about the ethical issues.
When developers write software under the umbrella of "open source", many aren't even aware of software freedom issues---they may be doing it because their peers are doing it; because they were told they should do it for a portfolio to get a job; or maybe because they like sharing their software with others. Some businesses liberate their code merely for contributions or press.
That's certainly not the case for all open source developers---there is, as you said, an overlap. But it's important to use the term "free software" and talk about software freedom to start those discussions and get people thinking about software freedom.
"Free Software" and "Open Source Software" refer to almost the same sets of software; but the "Free Software" movement/ideology and the "Open Source" movement/ideology are very different. And if we're talking about giving money to a foundation that does advocacy, it's the latter that matters more.
Because FS and OSS do refer to almost the same set of software, they are allies (more OSS means more FS and more FS means more OSS), but that doesn't make them friends. You are correct that OS does refer to more than just visible source. However, the OS movement/ideology does not care about user freedom as an objective, the OS ideology is based around the belief that user freedom leads to better, higher-quality software, for less dev cost; which is good business. Within the OS ideology and movement there is room to believe that there are situations where that isn't true, and that it can be the right decision to restrict user freedom. In the OS ideology, user freedom is the strategy, not the objective. In the FS ideology, user freedom is the objective; it is never the right decision to restrict user freedom.
OpenBSD is a different topic: it is free software, and considers user freedom to be an objective. However, they disagree with GNU/FSF about whether copyleft/the GPL is a good strategy for user freedom.
Open source focuses on the technical. Free software focuses on the political
Stallman has said many times he wasn't trying to move the state of technology forward with GNU projects - just trying to have a libre computing base because it was the best political option.
I'm not expert (really, shocking I know), is there a scenario where the market starts going and the well known coins become the store of value?
If the throttle is on converting back to fiat currency, then BTC/ETH/(LTC?) will be in demand and have the longest hold periods since they are currently the gateway out.
Sort of. If this goes the same way it did with mtgox in 2013, we should expect to see bitcoin prices shoot up in the tether exchanges and go down in the USD exchanges.
>as more and more money is transferred to the people
Where do you think this money came from in the first place? You think the value of bitcoin was driven up by the 1%? Or magically created by gnomes like fractional reserve lending?
If we want to be philosophical then answer is very simple. The money comes from people who want to buy bitcoins.
Then we can ask why people want to buy bitcoins and the answer get a bit more complex but usefully branches into two areas. People want to either speculate (gamble) that the coins will increase in value because they think others also think that the value will increase and thus it will, or they want to buy the bitcoins because it enables them to buy objects for which bitcoins serves as value tokens.
Which in turn leads us to ask about the nature of value tokens. Why do we use them, the history, intrinsic values, and so on.
Readit News
Deleted Comment
Glad to see people who clearly understand that "Open Source" does not encompass everything.
I say this because it's important to remember that open source is also intended to refer to a strict definition that also addresses user freedoms. The open source definition for example forbids discriminating against fields of endeavour and says the software should be usable for any purpose. "Open source" doesn't just mean visible source.
OpenBSD calls itself free software despite being opposed to copyleft, for example. Open source and free software are more allies than enemies, and I think it's important to remember that both want user freedom. They just express it in different ways and to a different degree.
As a free software activist, I haven't found that to be true. Remember that the term "open source" was created explicitly to sell the development methodology to businesses without talking about the ethical issues.
When developers write software under the umbrella of "open source", many aren't even aware of software freedom issues---they may be doing it because their peers are doing it; because they were told they should do it for a portfolio to get a job; or maybe because they like sharing their software with others. Some businesses liberate their code merely for contributions or press.
That's certainly not the case for all open source developers---there is, as you said, an overlap. But it's important to use the term "free software" and talk about software freedom to start those discussions and get people thinking about software freedom.
"Free Software" and "Open Source Software" refer to almost the same sets of software; but the "Free Software" movement/ideology and the "Open Source" movement/ideology are very different. And if we're talking about giving money to a foundation that does advocacy, it's the latter that matters more.
Because FS and OSS do refer to almost the same set of software, they are allies (more OSS means more FS and more FS means more OSS), but that doesn't make them friends. You are correct that OS does refer to more than just visible source. However, the OS movement/ideology does not care about user freedom as an objective, the OS ideology is based around the belief that user freedom leads to better, higher-quality software, for less dev cost; which is good business. Within the OS ideology and movement there is room to believe that there are situations where that isn't true, and that it can be the right decision to restrict user freedom. In the OS ideology, user freedom is the strategy, not the objective. In the FS ideology, user freedom is the objective; it is never the right decision to restrict user freedom.
OpenBSD is a different topic: it is free software, and considers user freedom to be an objective. However, they disagree with GNU/FSF about whether copyleft/the GPL is a good strategy for user freedom.
Stallman has said many times he wasn't trying to move the state of technology forward with GNU projects - just trying to have a libre computing base because it was the best political option.
That's not how Microsoft uses the word "Open Source" so the expression is completely void of meaning nowadays.
If the throttle is on converting back to fiat currency, then BTC/ETH/(LTC?) will be in demand and have the longest hold periods since they are currently the gateway out.
(this is vaguely tautological statement, if the prices stay high then it isn't a collapse, etc.)
Where do you think this money came from in the first place? You think the value of bitcoin was driven up by the 1%? Or magically created by gnomes like fractional reserve lending?
Then we can ask why people want to buy bitcoins and the answer get a bit more complex but usefully branches into two areas. People want to either speculate (gamble) that the coins will increase in value because they think others also think that the value will increase and thus it will, or they want to buy the bitcoins because it enables them to buy objects for which bitcoins serves as value tokens.
Which in turn leads us to ask about the nature of value tokens. Why do we use them, the history, intrinsic values, and so on.
http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-97-are-held-by-4-of-a...