Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Bricky (thatbrickster@shitposter.world)'s status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 18:02:55 JST Bricky
   FSF defining freedoms based on ten-year-old standards.
   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 18:02:54 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     @thatbrickster@shitposter.world I'm not sure what you mean. The FSF and free software movement ideals are based on the culture around computer science from the 1950s when almost all software being developed was free software. When software was not seen as a commodity (unlike the hardware) but instead mostly treated as an academic work of research under the principles of cooperation.
     
     Back then it was normal even commercial companies, such as IBM, to include the source code of their programs with the hardware purchase, so the user can properly use the machine for their own purpose.
     
     The freedoms and ideals as defined by the FSF are a direct continuation of this. This is not a 10 year old standard, but a almost 70 year old one.

     翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Bricky (thatbrickster@shitposter.world)'s status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 18:05:21 JST Bricky

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq
     @SuperDicq I was mocking how they are a decade behind everyone else, but okay.
   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 18:05:21 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     @thatbrickster@shitposter.world In terms of what? I personally think the FSF is more relevant than ever.

   • Embed this notice
     lainy (lain@lain.com)'s status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 18:25:00 JST lainy

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq
     • :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
     @bonifartius @thatbrickster @SuperDicq abolishing copyright / IP would do this. some of the FSF 'freedoms' are not freedoms at all but positive rights (i.e., obligations on third parties) that only get enforced via copyright law.
   • Embed this notice
     :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄 (bonifartius@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 18:25:01 JST :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq

     @thatbrickster @SuperDicq i believe there certainly are enough organizations in this area who try to define "freedom".

     only they tend to define it as "free as in free beer" like the whole permissive license crowd. or "freedom until you wrongthink", like FSFE who'd seem to rather have some kind of "ethical license".

     FSF and RMS are a clear cut case of exceptionalism because most people (including myself) couldn't come up with something which ONLY protects freedom without additional limitations.

   • Embed this notice
     :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄 (bonifartius@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 18:25:02 JST :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq

     @thatbrickster @SuperDicq everyone else is "billions of flies can't be wrong, eat more shit" :blobcatwinktongue:

     honestly, most of the software i use which ALSO is reliable exists for >20 years now. if FSF keeps _this_ software free and working, i'm happy - most of the modern software isn't salvageable anyway.

   • Embed this notice
     Bricky (thatbrickster@shitposter.world)'s status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 18:25:02 JST Bricky

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq
     • :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
     @bonifartius Stable software that doesn't need updates making breaking changes is not a problem. That wasn't my point of contention.
     
     I don't like single (1) organisations having a monopoly on the definition of things. I don't think the FSF should be the only ones who can define 'freedom' nor do I think they are above criticism.
     
     @SuperDicq
   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 18:43:47 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     • :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄

     @bonifartius@qoto.org @thatbrickster@shitposter.world only they tend to define it as "free as in free beer" like the whole permissive license crowd.That's not true. Permissive software doesn't have to be free as in price.
     like FSFE who'd seem to rather have some kind of "ethical license".Also not true, the FSFE follows the same free software definition that the FSF does.

   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 18:51:15 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     • lainy
     • :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄

     @lain@lain.com @bonifartius@qoto.org @thatbrickster@shitposter.world Abolishing copyright does not fix all of the world's software freedom issues. If we abolished copyright proprietary software will not automatically become free software, because we would often still lack the source code to make any meaningful changes.
     some of the FSF 'freedoms' are not freedoms at all but positive rights (i.e., obligations on third parties) that only get enforced via copyright law.This is not technically true either. You are confused with concepts like copyleft, which is enforced through a copyright license.
     
     Copyleft is not part of the free software definition. It is just a way to ensure free software stays free, but it does is not a requirement for software to be considered free.
     
     Outside of copyright there also exists free software. This is for example software released into the public domain (if the source code is available).

     翠星石 and lainy like this.
   • Embed this notice
     lainy (lain@lain.com)'s status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 18:53:55 JST lainy

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq
     • :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
     @SuperDicq @bonifartius @thatbrickster mandating access to the source code is the point that is an obligation on a third party
   • Embed this notice
     :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄 (bonifartius@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 19:27:47 JST :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄

     in reply to

     • lainy
     • SuperDicq

     @lain @SuperDicq @thatbrickster
     > that only get enforced via copyright law.

     i'd say that a license can exist without copyright law as it's a private contract. the way GPL is written it is creating an exemption of copyright, because copyright law exists - it would be useless otherwise :)

     if these laws wouldn't exist, you still could either do a license as private contract just for using the software (the ususal EULA) or something like GPL allowing for more freedom.

     lainy likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     lainy (lain@lain.com)'s status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 19:30:29 JST lainy

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq
     • :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
     @bonifartius @SuperDicq @thatbrickster
     
     the difference would be that private contract law only binds the two parties that actually signed the contract. if microsoft makes a contract with that i can not give away their software for free, that won't bind you if i give it to you for free anyway. ms might sue me for damages but you can keep giving away the software for free once its out. same for sources.
   • Embed this notice
     lainy (lain@lain.com)'s status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 19:37:18 JST lainy

     in reply to

     • lainy
     • SuperDicq
     • :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
     @bonifartius @SuperDicq @thatbrickster we can see that playing out with the model data of LLMs, which are currently not thought to fall under copyright, but often you have to sign some sort of agreement to get access to them (for llama, for example). but then somebody inevitably 'leaks' it (i.e, puts out a torrent) and everyone else can work with it with no strings attached.
   • Embed this notice
     Mr Funk 🇦🇺 (sophistifunk@noauthority.social)'s status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 19:37:42 JST Mr Funk 🇦🇺

     in reply to

     • lainy
     • SuperDicq
     • :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄

     @lain @bonifartius @SuperDicq @thatbrickster copyright is a bullshit contract the government enters you into without your permission.

   • Embed this notice
     meeper@mai.waifuism.life's status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 19:58:46 JST meeper

     in reply to

     • lainy
     • SuperDicq
     • :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄

     @lain@lain.com @bonifartius@qoto.org @SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @thatbrickster@shitposter.world It would be hilarious if someone leaks (read opens) openais models before their 'open source' model release. so much for their fair use argument which should apply to them lol

     lainy likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     lainy (lain@lain.com)'s status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 21:12:54 JST lainy

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq
     • :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
     @bonifartius @SuperDicq @thatbrickster the license is irrelevant to you as a third party, you never went into any contractual obligations with either me or the second party.
   • Embed this notice
     :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄 (bonifartius@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 28-Apr-2025 21:12:55 JST :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄

     in reply to

     • lainy
     • SuperDicq

     @lain @SuperDicq @thatbrickster i'm not a lawer but shouldn't including a term that giving away the software applies the same license be enough?

     you get the software. you give it to me for free, without informing me about the license. still, as the license stated distribution _must always_ happen under the same terms the license still applies and i get in trouble, only that i could sue you for the damages the original producer sues me
     for, as i received the software under the false assumption it wasn't licensed this way.

     :ablobdancer: i've been spending most my life, living in a lolberts paradise 🎶

   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Tuesday, 29-Apr-2025 00:20:27 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     • :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄

     @bonifartius@qoto.org @thatbrickster@shitposter.world The EUPL is not a glowie license. It is also approved by the FSF.
     
     I am aware that the FSFE has fallen victim to the lies spread against rms and do not want rms to have any significant role within the FSF.
     
     This bad act of diplomacy aside, I still think the FSFE is a good organization that supports software freedom in Europe and does mostly good things.

   • Embed this notice
     :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄 (bonifartius@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 29-Apr-2025 00:20:29 JST :gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq

     @SuperDicq @thatbrickster
     bit of a rant here:

     not in the mood of digging around on the FSFE page, but i think i have seen something along these lines from them.

     iirc they support things like this weird EU license which glows like thousand suns. on top they act like amoral assholes in general. FSFE wanted to kick out RMS on made up accusations, they will make up reasons to take away freedoms.