Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   MattZ (colinsmatt11@gleasonator.com)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Dec-2022 15:01:06 JST MattZ
   Many people argue about freedom of Free/Libre Software.
   
   Is copyleft freedom?
   Is permissive freedom?
   Is public domain freedom?
   
   Or is it some combination of the above?
   
   Free/Libre Software is for User freedom.
   
   0. The user to run the software for any reason.
   1. The user to study and make changes to the software as they see fit.
   2. The user to share the software with others, at a price if they wish.
   3. The user to share their modifications/changes with others, at a price if they wish.
   
   The 4 freedom are ideals, they still need to be applied in a practical way, which is achieved through different types of licenses, management structures of projects and more.
   
   Yes, there a lot of issues regarding user freedom that the 4 freedoms don't cover, ranging from DRM, source code being distributed in undesirable formats, utilisation of proprietary formats to distribute important files, and much more.
   
   But none of those issues justify moving away from the 4 freedom and denying user freedom.
   
   My entire point is rather than moving away from the 4 freedoms. Let's move together with them towards a better future. :ablobcatheart:
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Dec-2022 15:01:06 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @colinsmatt11 >Is copyleft freedom?
     Yes, you can use the software in any way you wish, modify the software in any way you wish and/or distribute the software gratis or for a fee provided you distribute the whole program and not half of it (not just the binaries, with the source too), under the same license.
     
     Freedom to take others freedom is not a useful thing to have, as it reduces the amount of freedom, so that should not be given.
     
     >Is permissive freedom?
     Many permissive licenses demand acceptance just to use the software, which is less free than the GPLv3 (which allows usage without acceptance), but the rest of the terms are usually reasonable.
     
     Also, most (all?) permissive licenses are terribly written and miss a bunch of things, so in certain cases a program may become nonfree, even if that wasn't the intention.
     
     >Is public domain freedom?
     Depends on the country.
     In some countries the public domain isn't a thing.
     
     Also, you're not really permitted to sell public domain software, but in practice you can just charge for the storage media or the distribution or bundle it as part of something else.
     
     Public domain software with source code is most often free software, but not always.
     
     
     >that the 4 freedoms don't cover ranging from DRM
     Digital handcuffs are fine provided the 4 freedoms are respected, as you can just remove the handcuffs if you have the source and can modify it.
     
     Digital handcuffs only work as intended if freedoms 1, 2 and 3 aren't respected (via proprietary software and/or tyrant hardware) .
     
     >source code being distributed in undesirable formats
     Obfuscated source code is not source code, so it's clear that freedoms 1 and 3 are being violated if that happens.
     
     If the original format is undesirable, that may not be convenient, but the source code has been provided in that case.
     
     >utilisation of proprietary formats to distribute important files
     Proprietary formats are only really an issue if freedom 1, 2 and 3 aren't respected (either via proprietary software or patents), as a file is only important if there's a program to read it and if you have a free program that can read the format, there's no problem.
     
     
     The 4 freedoms do indeed cover everything you mentioned.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Dec-2022 15:03:24 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • NiceMicro
     @nicemicro >free software as part of "consumer protection"
     https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/11/capitalism-language-raymond-williams
     
     Yes, your computer should serve you, not another master.
     
     >we have to understand that there are special cases
     There are no special cases, only problems that need to be solved.
   • Embed this notice
     NiceMicro (nicemicro@fosstodon.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Dec-2022 15:03:25 JST NiceMicro

     in reply to

     @colinsmatt11 I always saw free software as part of "consumer protection". You acquire some code to run on your computer, and you want it to do exactly what you need it to do, nothing more, nothing less, and especially nothing intrusive.

     While we have to understand that there are special cases, where there is no software for a certain purpose that would satisfy our expectations on that front, we should still advocate for free software fiercely.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Dec-2022 15:40:32 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • NiceMicro

     @nicemicro >I think the FSF does a relatively good job in specifying requirements, except maybe for firmware? There is a temporary exception for secondary processors for the RYF certification (https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria):

     “However, there is one exception for secondary embedded processors. The exception applies to software delivered inside auxiliary and low-level processors and FPGAs, within which software installation is not intended after the user obtains the product. This can include, for instance, microcode inside a processor, firmware built into an I/O device, or the gate pattern of an FPGA. The software in such secondary processors does not count as product software.

     We want users to be able to upgrade and control the software at as many levels as possible. If and when free software becomes available for use on a certain secondary processor, we will expect certified products to adopt it within a reasonable period of time. This can be done in the next model of the product, if there is a new model within a reasonable period of time. If this is not done, we will eventually withdraw the certification.

     The BIOS of a PC runs on the CPU, not on a separate secondary processor, so this exception does not apply to the BIOS.”

     The only reason the exception exists is because otherwise they couldn’t certify any computers at all.

     Anyone who has a problem with the exception is welcome to solve the problem by replacing a bunch of such software with free software and therefore getting removing the need for such exception.

     In my opinion, using software as a private person on your personal computer is a bit different than using a school or corporation owned computer Yes, but I was only writing about personal usage as you wrote “your computer”.

     The school or corporation should use free software for their freedoms sake, but that’s a different problem: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html

   • Embed this notice
     NiceMicro (nicemicro@fosstodon.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Dec-2022 15:40:33 JST NiceMicro

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki In my opinion, using software as a private person on your personal computer is a bit different than using a school or corporation owned computer, because as especially as a privately owned enterprise, you outsource many things to trusted third parties.

     But sure, in the case of a personal computer and consumer software, I agree with you, that the "special cases" I mentioned are actually problematic and need to be resolved.

     #FreeeSoftware