# Transparency strategies **URL:** \ **Category:** Sustainable open social systems\ **Tags:** list, strategy\ **Created:** [November 7, 2022, 3:10pm UTC](https://discuss.coding.social/t/transparency-strategies/191 "2022-11-07T15:10:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 10
**Author:** ![realaravinth](https://discuss.coding.social/user_avatar/discuss.coding.social/realaravinth/32/35_2.png) [@realaravinth](https://discuss.coding.social/u/realaravinth)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2022, 10:33am UTC](https://discuss.coding.social/t/transparency-strategies/191/10 "2022-11-18T10:33:55Z")
There are advantages and disadvantages to either approaches, but they have to be evaluated by in the context of the Free software and Free culture. 1. By making compromises on transparency policies, we might gain a temporary advantage over non-free actors. Ideas will be protected and showcased first. But non-free actors usually have more resources than most Free software projects. They are driven by increased sales and profits, both of which are not primary goals of Free Software projects. So it is very easy for non-free actors to catch up and even supersede Free software projects, making the advantage a very short-lived one. 2. Free Software projects are initiated and managed by a diverse set of folks. The projects generally pledge to treat their audience with respect, something that non-free projects regularly violate. Being radically transparent presents a track record to the public. The alternative, would require a leap of faith. 3. Secrecy is an anti-pattern in Free Software: There are several ongoing attempts to evaluate and document the trust-ability of Free Software projects ([https://reproducible-builds.org/](https://reproducible-builds.org/) and [https://opencollective.com/](https://opencollective.com/) ). Any compromise to transparency will only serve to hurt the project in the long term. 4. Secrecy is based on the idea that ideas can be owned. An idea is a result of past experiences and some creativity from the part of the person imaging it. To say that the idea belongs to the individual and can be owned disregards the contributions of the society. Besides, even if an idea was imagined in a black box with no influence from the environment, it is only a matter of time before someone else imagines it. Also, secrecy is besides the point. Non-free actors are secret because they want to be more successful, generate more profits. In the context of Free Software, this would translate to more adoption and a general conversion to FOSS. Conversion shouldn’t be the main goal, IMHO. I personally focus on honing my skills as a programmer and building and maintaining a healthy community for the people that are willing to participate in it. I am not a religious person, but I found the Buddhist philosophy of “Show not tell” very interesting and relevant for spreading Free software: > Because of this ‘come and see’ approach, scholars of Buddhism, as well as travellers, often have not noticed that monks are missionaries. The student monks in Chiang Mai themselves would not call their work missionising in the same vein as the Christians they have encountered. They contrast their openness to ‘show the way’ with Christian missionaries, who go out to find potential converts. Buddhist monks in Chiang Mai are not advertising their way of life, asking for support, or offering the possibility to become a Buddhist. Instead, they conclude that when the karmic connections arise, travellers will arrive at the temple and monks will be ready to share their teachings. Source: [Buddhists missionaries let prospective converts come to them | Aeon Essays](https://aeon.co/essays/buddhists-missionaries-let-prospective-converts-come-to-them) So, IMHO, conversion and better FOSS adoption is inevitable in the long run. But it is important that we don’t lose sight of it while trying to get there. --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.coding.social/t/transparency-strategies/191)._