Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   fu (fu@libranet.de)'s status on Friday, 11-Nov-2022 20:19:51 JST fu

   in reply to

   • Alexandre Oliva
   • fu
   • DCent
   @lnxw48a1 @lxo @dcent I think your answer is very different from the question I asked. It sounds like your position is very similar to mine. When I ran for public office software freedom was one of the major planks of our campaign. In addition to encouraging governments to only use Free Software, and in the process informing and encouraging the public to do the same, my proposal included requiring and future software that was purchased or developed on contract by said government, would have to be Free Software.
   
   My inquiry is if you all wished the State to take away the liberty of people to use and develop non-free software
   • Embed this notice
     DCent (dcent@gnusocial.net)'s status on Friday, 11-Nov-2022 20:19:53 JST DCent

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva
     • DCent
     (2 of 2) @fu @lnxw48a1 @lxo
     
     @fu asked:
     "Do you equally support governments making non-free software illegal?"
     
     I'm seeking a mandate to begin Council's transition to FOS and move from dot-'cons' and 'dis-services'. Just yesterday I posted about some ways we can do this and help people make the transition to ethical software and services.
     
     I also intend to start a fully-FOS, BTC/XMR friendly, non-lending public bank, called Un(ley)Bank. It would have its app on #FDroid. For those who are resistant to crypto but who still wish to have psuedo-anonymous transations online, I would like to see Un(ley)Bank adopt #GNUTaler also. (...yes. ? *slightly nervous face*)
     
     (See flyer delivered to 40,000 approx residents:
     https://gnusocial.net/conversation/7351760#notice-12758871)
   • Embed this notice
     DCent (dcent@gnusocial.net)'s status on Friday, 11-Nov-2022 20:19:54 JST DCent

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva
     @fu @lnxw48a1 @lxo Thanks for your question, Ji Fu.
     
     I'm putting this glyphosate-ban forward at the Mayor election so people can vote on it. Admittedly, a referendum would be best because I'm not a single-issue candidate, but a glyphosate-ban isn't controversial enough for that. This is not an agricultural zone, per se (though I do want to boost urban growing). The Council is the main buyer of the weedkiller. Individuals could arguably buy it outside the region, but I will seek to go after vendors selling food with elevated levels, just like Council randomly tests for other contaminants. I simply hope that by talking about this we can boost the drive to end its use.
     
     @lnxw48a1 wrote:
     "If we allow the sale of contaminated products (...), non-contaminated products will gradually be displaced from the market (...)"
     
     Agree. Even people who shop ethically need basic protections against fraudulent claims/conduct (see Happy Baby).
     
     (1 of 2)
   • Embed this notice
     fu (fu@libranet.de)'s status on Friday, 11-Nov-2022 20:19:55 JST fu

     • Alexandre Oliva
     @lnxw48a1 @lxo big government backd corporations have always been the enemy. The protections the State give them, such as limited liability, is what allows them to thrive.