Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Matthew Garrett (mjg59@nondeterministic.computer)'s status on Monday, 11-May-2026 23:00:18 JST Matthew Garrett

   People will complain that a technology can be used to oppress user freedom while contributing to free software that gets used in literal weapons of war

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 11-May-2026 23:00:16 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @mjg59 Such license would be brainded and proprietary and not even valid, considering the only country where copyright grants the power to restrict execution of software is Brazil.
     
     Also, governments who are going to murder people aren't just going to commit the lesser act of copyright infringement as well (what are you going to do, sue them in a governmental court and lose?).
     
     Restrictions on usage totally violate freedom 0, even if the restrictions only apply to things that are bad; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html
   • Embed this notice
     Matthew Garrett (mjg59@nondeterministic.computer)'s status on Monday, 11-May-2026 23:00:17 JST Matthew Garrett

     in reply to

     I do entirely understand the idea that functionality that can be used against users (even if it can also be used to enhance user security) is bad, I just don't understand why people will simultaneously make that argument and support the idea that a software license that says "You may not use this software to murder people" is incompatible with the ideals of free software

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 11-May-2026 23:02:13 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @mjg59 Such license would be brainded and proprietary and not even valid, considering the only country where copyright grants the power to restrict execution of software is Brazil.
     
     Also, even if such restrictions on usage are valid, governments who are going to murder people aren't going to hesitate when it comes to carrying out the lesser act of copyright infringement (what are you going to do, sue them in a governmental court and lose?).
     
     Restrictions on usage totally violate freedom 0, even if the restrictions currently only apply to things that are bad; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 11-May-2026 23:03:19 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @mjg59 "Attestation" has only ever been used for harmful things - it has never once ever been used from something helpful.
     
     Signal is proprietary software, thus you would be a fool to trust it with sensitive data.
   • Embed this notice
     Matthew Garrett (mjg59@nondeterministic.computer)'s status on Monday, 11-May-2026 23:03:20 JST Matthew Garrett

     in reply to

     DRM is pretty obviously something that inherently removes user freedom without benefit, and decrying it is entirely reasonable. Hardware identity and state attestation *can* be used for DRM, but can also be used for other purposes that improve things for users (like Signal verifying that it's communicating with a genuine enclave before disclosing any sensitive data), and attacking the technology rather than the ways it's used seems short-sighted

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 11-May-2026 23:04:21 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @mjg59 I would contribute to the software used in GNUke for the holy GNU/War ですぅ
     
     Those proprietary software companies aren't going to nuke themselves.