Notices by Donnodubus (donnodubus@pagan.plus)

@lxo I think we can end the discussion with this.

The other person should have said:
"This is not GPL compatible"
"This is not FSF approved"
"This can't be used for Capitalism"

Any of those would have been true. To say it's "not free" is false. (Or at least, debatable).

@lxo Arguably, "single-issue focus" is an illusion. I understand this license doesn't follow the FSF approach, but to me Software Freedom is not a trademark of the FSF—it is a philosophy to be debated.

@lxo This license preserves all of your essential freedoms, it only excludes the exploitation of labor. Any definition of "freedom" that mandates allowing the exploitation of labor is inherently a liberal Capitalist one—nothing inherently to do with software.

The license is therefore less permissive, but more Free.

@lxo The 4 Freedoms are not stone tablets handed down from the Heavens. From a Leftist point of view, a license that excludes Capitalists is not non-free. If you consider a Leftist point of view inherently invalid or illegitimate, I'm not interested in your opinion about "freedom". There is no freedom under Capitalism.

@tirifto @feditips It is free software if you're not a capitalist.

@tirifto @feditips No one is free under Capitalism, and opposing it is a liberatory act. The FSF is not the final arbiter on the definition of "free".

@tirifto @feditips I never claimed to be, unlike you arguing that the FSF is.

But even by your own logic, the FSF has long established that more permissive ≠ more free. This license follows all the tenets of Free Software, it only adds that using this software to exploit labor is not permitted.

@tirifto
Your comprehension of Software Freedom is superficial and reductive. Just because that list of "the four freedoms" don't address issues like permissive vs. free does not negate the fact that it is a crucial issue in Free Software philosophical discourse that led to the development of GPLv3, for example.

You are actually arguing that this list of 4 freedoms somehow constitutes the authoritative totality of Software Freedom, which forecloses the possibility of any dissenting or alternative views and arguments—something that would even shut out the views of Stallman himself lol.

@WahbAllat

Does it preserve the old version of the post the way the edit feature does on Twitter? I'm wondering how they prevent abuse of this feature.