Notices by Tirifto (tirifto@jam.xwx.moe), page 2

@donnodubus @feditips I don’t think I’ve made my logic well understood. I don’t claim that anyone’s definition is inherently authoritative. It only becomes authoritative once it becomes the sole definition in common use. I claim that is the case for FSF’s definition, and therefore all software to meet it is rightly called ‘free software’, while any other software is not (at least in absence of further clarification). Other definitions of ‘free software’ are valid in theory, but they are not common in practice.

The four freedoms explicitly state that you must be free to ‘run the program as you wish, for any purpose’. It should stand to reason that if you are not allowed to run the program to exploit labour, you are not free to run it for any purpose. Therefore, such program does not meet the common definition of free software, and should not be called ‘free software’.

There is not a single word about permissiveness in the definition, and the only way the concept is relevant is if it limits any of the four freedoms. Licences like the GPL, MPL, Expat or zlib do not do this, while that of BookWyrm clearly does.

@udon @gnusocialjp @TerminalAutism @digdeeper @ryo Well put; I think I understand the other point of view being presented here better now. Freedom is being viewed in the big picture, as a think of its own, and freedom-respecting software must be software that does nothing to harm it. And I would agree that it’s practical, but not more so than the 4 freedoms.

The 4 freedoms don’t care about other aspects of your life; they are limited in scope precisely to what you can do, specifically what you can do with the program. And you are right in saying that does not ascertain your freedom outside that scope. But I think that scope is, in itself, very practical. If nothing else, it allows the program to be changed to help you outside of the scope it already does; it’s the minimal prerequisite to change how the program affects everything else. It’s often not enough in the big picture (when looking beyond just ‘software freedom’), but it sets a solid foundation which allows people to build the other important stuff on top of it.

I think it makes sense to call this ‘software freedom’, as opposed to ‘freedom’ as a general concept, and I do often use the term ’software freedom’ when talking about ‘free software’ (as defined by the FSF). It’s the part of freedom that pertains to the software and nothing else. And it can be useful to consider on its own. But of course it’s not enough, and I suppose I can see why’d you want ‘freedom’ to not refer only to that.

Complexity and readability of source code is another issue on the 4 FOSS laws.

Yes, and an important one. I sometimes read that not taking them into consideration is a failing of the 4 freedoms, but it’s really us who must do that. Most people in the sphere have been accustomed to the technical/theoretical determination of freedom: if it’s technically feasible for the 4 freedoms to be exercised, the program is free. But how practical it is to do so? The ability to edit the source code is normally taken as the dividing line, and I’m not sure there’s a better line to be drawn. How easy it is to exercise the freedoms is subjective, but it’s safe to say that e.g. Guix does a much better job on the freedom front than e.g. Chromium, which does make it across the line, but the ‘freedom’ it gives us remains largely useless in practice.

People have actually told me that free software doesn’t have to respect your privacy because privacy is not one of the four freedoms.

@TerminalAutism @gnusocialjp @digdeeper @ryo It doesn’t, though. Privacy is an issue separate from freedom. They are both important and connected, but that doesn’t make them one and the same.