The Free Software Foundation needs our help

[netcat]

I would never, ever apology for other people to be dumb as fucks.

Right. He can never sway the dumb fucks, those making the phony allegations. On the other hand he does have a chance of indicating that it's all behind him now and convincing the general public he's ok. It's a compromise but probably worth making for the FSF.

Hank Azaria apologises âto every Indian personâ for voicing Apu in The Simpsons

Azaria, who is white, voiced the role of the Indian American shopkeeper from show’s inception in 1989 but stood down last year

www.theguardian.com

The irony is that Apu introduced Indian culture to millions in a positive way. In this case mimicking the accent is not racism it's flattery. Anyway..

Torvalds never cared about freedom as an end in itself

Oh... freedom. What does it mean? Possibly something quite similar to both RMS and Linus actually. Is it about doing what you want? Yes - in terms of software (you are usually allowed to program in jail btw). I'm not sure it's about benevolence. It's definitely not primarily about not paying (which is what it means to most people). I suspect they both had very similar motives for promoting the GPL. It could be they wanted software that was unavailable to them for whatever reason. Or they both wanted their software to be as widely used as possible. These are both selfish reasons. Not that it matters.

 

[ClockworkCoder]

freedom. What doesit mean?... Is it about doing what you want? Yes

Not exactly. It's about having the ability to choose freely, but there are always going to be ethical/social limits when interacting with others.

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

Oh... freedom. What does it mean?

What is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation

Since 1983, developing the free Unix style operating system GNU, so that computer users can have the freedom to share and improve the software they use.

www.gnu.org

TL;DR:

• The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others.
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The Linux Kernel mostly respects those freedoms (not entirely though, it does contain binary blobs; which is why Guix uses Linux-Libre), but that is mostly for short-term pragmatic reasons. As I understand it, Linux Torvalds only cares about developing software that works well and will make it proprietary or open source depending on what would make development go faster/easier/better/etc. He does not care about freedom in itself. Freedom to him is just a tool. It is a very different philosophy than the one that drives the GNU project because the GNU project cares about freedom in itself and thus will refuse to support proprietary software even if providing such support would be better on the short-term. GNU seems to be more about the long-term advantages of having a free society.

I think that freedom is necessary for people to maximise happiness and justice, so I align more with the GNU way of thinking than with the Linux way of thinking.

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

Not exactly. It's about having the ability to choose freely, but there are always going to be ethical/social limits when interacting with others.

It is about having control over your own life. Control over other people is not freedom but power. So freedom is being able to do whatever you want as long as it does not harm others.

And yes, this means that being allowed to release proprietary software is freedom too. Such things ought to not be forbidden by law. And users ought to have the freedom to surrender their own freedom. If they someone would willingly want to be someone else's slave, then he ought to have the freedom to offer himself as such. But for users it is wiser to protect their own freedom and to not use their freedom to surrender their freedom. And trying to coerce people into surrendering their freedom is a morally dubious act at best.

 

[ElPoco]

I've heard the interesting argument that free software doesn't appeal much to non computer-savvy users because they still do surrender their freedom to the developers and maintainers of said software. So to them, it's just moving trust from an actor to another.
If they want to have control over the software, they need to learn development, so they're forced to either do it or surrender their freedom to the developers. Of course, they still have the option not to use software, but this is an option that is getting more and more complicated.

 

[pyrat]

I've heard the interesting argument that free software doesn't appeal much to non computer-savvy users because they still do surrender their freedom to the developers and maintainers of said software. So to them, it's just moving trust from an actor to another.
If they want to have control over the software, they need to learn development, so they're forced to either do it or surrender their freedom to the developers.

And I surrender my freedom to the cooker of my restaurant, or to the supermarket where I buy my food, because I don't know and I don't have the means to grow my own vegetables.
There're two answers to that: one is going back to Paleolithic, hunters or gatherers and several orders of magnitude less population. The other is trust the specialist you want. Users
don't have to trust free software developers. They can trust their own perits on whatever subject including the free software they're insterested in, and if they share their report/fixes
we will all likely rejoice. They may have to pay for that if they can't do it themselves. Or they can choose proprietary software, pay it and forfeit any help from experts or their peers
or society in general.

So for them is moving their trust from one provider to whatever provider they want to choose at any moment. That's a difference. It's called transparency.

And then there's this issue more important than it seems of them vs us. Users vs developers. With free software noone is preselected to be user or developer, it's a choice of what
do you want to do with your time and your brains. With proprietary software you're a user. Period.

Of course, they still have the option not to use software, but this is an option that is getting more and more complicated.

Here you have a point. It really shouldn't get more and more complicated, but it is. We should all push for accepting people who don't want to use computers. It's very sane, and they're completely entitled to it.
And this world is not giving the general population enough good computers and software to use, so we should at least allow to opt out. But the ignorant masses are not only buying the cool aid but pressing
everyone else to buy it and pretend it's normal.

 

[levi]

The Linux Kernel mostly respects those freedoms (not entirely though, it does contain binary blobs; which is why Guix uses Linux-Libre), but that is mostly for short-term pragmatic reasons.

The kernel doesn't contain blobs afaik, at the very least if it's not tainted. Most of those binary blobs are in drivers which as far as I know do run in kernel space but aren't strictly part of the kernel.

Regarding the trustworthiness of developers, it's the fact that google is an advertising company that markets an OS, and that seems to have made microsoft and apple also need to spy on its users, probably for money reasons. Money reasons don't work so well if you're giving away your source code on the internet, so I put those developers higher on the trustworthiness scale.

 

[Askarus]

Is it not a girl that gives Bart Simpson his voice?
If so, I want her to immediately apologize now.

 

[pyrat]

The kernel doesn't contain blobs afaik, at the very least if it's not tainted. Most of those binary blobs are in drivers which as far as I know do run in kernel space but aren't strictly part of the kernel.

The linux kernel from kernel.org contains blobs. Some are marked as GPL licensed, so not tainted, but they don't have source, just binary data in some .c or .h. If you need proof you can compare linux-libre and linux or you can deblob a kernel.org release with linux-libre tools. The kernel.org has allowed that for many years.

 

[FBnil]

And I surrender my freedom to the cooker of my restaurant,

You are not surrendering anything there. You made a choice, a choice to trust the restaurant to serve you food in an ambiance in exchange for valuta (money).
You get fed. You get entertained (or at the very least, distracted from mundane routine). You might enjoy it, or not.

If I put on a green jersey, I'm not surrendering my freedom to put on my red jersey... I just made a choice. (no, don't put on both jerseys)

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

I've heard the interesting argument that free software doesn't appeal much to non computer-savvy users because they still do surrender their freedom to the developers and maintainers of said software. So to them, it's just moving trust from an actor to another.
If they want to have control over the software, they need to learn development, so they're forced to either do it or surrender their freedom to the developers. Of course, they still have the option not to use software, but this is an option that is getting more and more complicated.

I understand that point but with free software people can hire anyone they want and can even hire second opinions. Or as is often the case, there will be multiple forks and multiple people looking over the code for free. With proprietary software people are dependent on one entity with no second opinions and no way out if that proprietary vendor turns against them. So this is not a valid argument IMO. I think that most people do not care about libre software because they do not think about it and as a result value short-term convenience more than safety and freedom.

And I surrender my freedom to the cooker of my restaurant, or to the supermarket where I buy my food, because I don't know and I don't have the means to grow my own vegetables.

Many countries have laws that mandate labels with ingredients. Labels still require some trust, but it is much better than having nothing at all as is the case with proprietary software. Also, a large amount of my food is whole food in order to deal with this issue. It is not perfect, but it not being perfect is no reason to give up completely. driving is not perfectly safe either, but I still wear seat-belts and look out when I drive. I do not abandon those safety measures just because they only remove most risk instead of all risk.

And then there's this issue more important than it seems of them vs us. Users vs developers. With free software noone is preselected to be user or developer, it's a choice of what
do you want to do with your time and your brains. With proprietary software you're a user. Period.

Yes, I like that libre software removes this hard line. Anyone can be as much of an user or developer as they want, it becomes a flexible spectrum where people can shift back and forth as they please.

 

[pyrat]

You are not surrendering anything there. You made a choice, a choice to trust the restaurant to serve you food in an ambiance in exchange for valuta (money).
You get fed. You get entertained (or at the very least, distracted from mundane routine). You might enjoy it, or not.

If I put on a green jersey, I'm not surrendering my freedom to put on my red jersey... I just made a choice. (no, don't put on both jerseys)

Yes. You're making my point for me. Free software users made a free choice to trust free software developers (as long as those are distinct groups which shouldn't be so clear cut).
It's either you do everything yourself or you trust others. You can choose who you trust, but you can't keep your freedom on how to do something when you delegate on someone else to do it.
You're freely giving away your freedom to someone else in that particular task. And then your freedom to do it transforms on your freedom to choose who to have to do it for you.
You're trusting whoever made your green jersey to use no asbestos, not too radioactive materials, not to use slave labour, etc. You would be sure of that if you made your jersey yourself,
and you could have if you had your own sheep, but you choose not to grow your sheep, or not to pull their wool, or not to made your jersey. Every decision you takes forecloses other decisions
and removes degrees of freedom, but you're no less free because of taking decisions.

So free software gives more options to developers than non developers, but that does not mean that it doesn't give any freedom to non developers. They have the freedom to choose what free software to use
and who to have it made or adapted. They have the freedom to choose how to use it (freedom 0), they have the freedom to give it to their neighbour (freedom 2),
and they have the freedom to learn from it and become developers to help themselves or others if they want (1,4).

I understand that free software is easier to understand for developers than for non developers (users are we all). But that's an information issue, not a freedom issue.

 

[netcat]

Wait.
It is not the Free People Foundation.
It is not about your freedom.
It is about the software being free.
Free as in Mandela.
GPL software cannot be held prisoner.
No one can keep it for themselves or fork it privately.
Anyone can access main/latest.
Copyleft.
Free software is a development model.
It's about inclusion not benevolence.
Helping others... that's marketing.

 

[pyrat]

Wait.
It is not the Free People Foundation.
It is not about your freedom.
It is about the software being free.
Free as in Mandela.
GPL software cannot be held prisoner.
No one can keep it for themselves or fork it privately.
Anyone can access main/latest.
Copyleft.
Free software is a development model.
It's about inclusion not benevolence.
Helping others... that's marketing.

That mostly open source discourse.
Free software is about the freedom of people to use computers. That's why the FSF is against DRM, tivoization, service as a software substitute and other things that you could do with free software but still are wrong.

 

[ible]

So freedom is being able to do whatever you want as long as it does not harm others.

ah, i almost thought this was the Covid-19 thread for a second; you're making a good argument for wearing a mask, social distancing, and getting the vaccine

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

ah, i almost thought this was the Covid-19 thread for a second; you're making a good argument for wearing a mask, social distancing, and getting the vaccine

I make a good argument for not forcing others to wear a mask, to anti-social distance, or to get a vaccine. Forcing others to do those things violates their freedom. In fact, the vaccine would violate their bodily autonomy which is one of the worst ways to violate someone's freedom. A country where the people are forced under threat of violence to surrender their bodily integrity is not free.

I guess that your argument would be that without control over my body, social life, and clothing you cannot keep yourself healthy. You do not think that you are capable of taking responsibility for your own health. Therefore you want to abolish freedom to the extend of taking away people's freedoms even up to one of the few most important freedoms there is i.e. bodily autonomy.
I disagre with that stance. One reason is that in virtually every case either you can keep yourself healthy if you wanted to put in the effort, or others cannot help you no matter how much freedom they surrender. Second, even if you could improve your heaqlth by controling my life, it would still not be ethical. Your dependence on me would not be my fault, I still have the right to freedom and bodily integrity.

But yes, I also think that people ought to be free to wear masks, pretend other people have leprosy, and let for-profit corporation inject poorly tested rushed vaccins in their body. I would never advocate for you not having those freedoms. I would prefer for you to have the same attitude towards me, but luckily I will not need your permission on either of these issues.

However I will not go into this too deeply here because this is not the CoViD-19 thread and therefore not the place for a long CoViD-19 discussion.

 

[levi]

Trouble is your bodily integrity is not absolute. I'll grant you, it's lasted now a hell of a long time, but not what we have an outbreak of such a virulent and nasty virus, it doesn't hold by itself, only if bolstered by an effective vaccine. To my mind at least not accepting a good vaccine it tantamount to risking the lives of your family and those you meet.

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

To my mind at least not accepting a good vaccine it tantamount to risking the lives of your family and those you meet.

Quite the contrary. There supposedly is a huge shortage of vaccines and I am donating my dose to whoever wants it. So I am risking my own life for the sake of others! You ought to be praising me. But if your vaccine turns out badly, then do not blame me, I did not force you to take my dose, I just gave you the freedom to.

 

[levi]

I guess that depends where you live. If that is the case for you then I'm sorry.

 

[netcat]

That mostly open source discourse.

Oh fuck you're right.