this post argues that stallman is not the "root" cause of bad things, and that he is being publicly "whipped" and "cancelled" with analogy to when marginalized people are ganged up on, and that he should be made "irrelevant".

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@foolishowl @sidereal i happen to like @ddosecrets quite a lot it would be a tough task to make "the ddosecrets of the fsf" but i think we could do it lmao

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@foolishowl @sidereal really really liked the fsfe's statement https://circumstances.run/@hipsterelectron/113314666122040298

sidereal

@hipsterelectron @foolishowl Like how “free” is free software if it has been consistently controlled by this one guy since the 70’s

I get that he sees himself as a defender of purity but… that’s… exactly… the problem

He pushes one (problematic) definition of free software, but what if that doesn’t make free software better or more popular? What if it just pushes people to corporate software

FinalOverdrive

@sidereal @hipsterelectron @foolishowl On the other hand, OSS is pretty corporate. And quite independently of who came up with it, the license pretty much covers all the users freedoms. It's just not good enough by itself.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@FinalOverdrive @sidereal @foolishowl see OSI's "AI" definition which clarifies they were an op all along but still uses the language of free software https://circumstances.run/@hipsterelectron/113336602165141043. i think the anti-capitalist software license makes some good points too and it would be worth incorporating a more expansive view of whose freedoms are being protected. i would really like the license to cover more than just the software too but i think the way to do that is to align with an organization that does other work to align the software with those goals than to remain purely license/contract-focused. not sure yet

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@FinalOverdrive @sidereal @foolishowl have pondered this before; i think copyleft should be a clause and not an end in itself https://circumstances.run/@hipsterelectron/112475230792340206

FinalOverdrive

@hipsterelectron @sidereal @foolishowl Again I am not seeing what good could come of doing that.

FinalOverdrive

@hipsterelectron @sidereal @foolishowl I also don't think it is fair to accuse GPL of being some kind of neoliberal document. It is clearly at odds with OSI, which can be called neoliberal with more justice

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@FinalOverdrive @sidereal @foolishowl it's not neoliberal but i do think it is libertarian

FinalOverdrive

@hipsterelectron @sidereal @foolishowl Again, given how many restrictions are in the GPL for commercial use, I don't see wharmt you mean? Libetarian in what sense? American? How it has been used in anarchism, which I remind you is a socialist movement.

Every time I bring up the "no using code for military, police, or espionage purposes" as a union demand...do you really have that little faith in programmers ability to organize collectively? Why must we undermine a key freedom in the license, a valuable one for programmers and users? What is wrong with placing an exception clause to freedom 0? Why be hostile to freedom at all?

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@FinalOverdrive @sidereal @foolishowl i'm fully aware that libertarian refers to anarchism in most of the world and in the US where free software originated it refers to a form of cosplay that redounds to capitalist extractivism by virtue of anarchism's negative but no positive liberties, so that's how i use the term here. a license is literally a contract and is governed by the terms of contract law, while copyright law only governs the applicability of the license as a contract. the framing of "freedom" as if exacting terms within a contract becomes problematic when backed by copyright law but not by labor law is confusing to me.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@FinalOverdrive @sidereal @foolishowl if we're doing contracts, we're doing work within the law, and i don't see why copyright is off limits to exact freedoms. the anti-capitalist software license is prior art that anarchists have used in the past; i think a copyleft clause on top would be useful. i don't really see where we disagree except in the idea that the software license contract should be disparate from other labor contracts. i think one resounding failure of free software was not to use the power of copyright to bolster other freedoms.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@FinalOverdrive @sidereal @foolishowl i don't at all like the hippocratic license because of its checkboxes which don't allow the code to be intermixed freely and seem like a bit of a cop out to avoid building a unified movement of solidarity. i do like the ACSL for doing the exact opposite and want to learn more about its history and background.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@FinalOverdrive @sidereal @foolishowl i think "why not to use the LGPL" is extremely instructive on the precedent we can follow that would actually achieve meaningful freedoms:

If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free software development, and some projects will decide to make software free in order to use these libraries. University projects can easily be influenced; nowadays, as companies begin to consider making software free, even some commercial projects can be influenced in this way.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@FinalOverdrive @sidereal @foolishowl is your concern that the splintering of license compatibility doesn't seem as likely to succeed in gathering widespread support as the GPL? i assume it's more than that, but that's one concern i can imagine. people have always used different licenses for different tasks and for software which already exists under other licenses, then sure we can use the GPL for that. but if it's something resoundingly new and people might truly be ready to accept restrictions against surveillance/apartheid in order to use the software, i think we should be open to the possibility that a license contract can fill that role

FinalOverdrive

@hipsterelectron @sidereal @foolishowl Okay reading all that helps me understand your position better. I need some time to process all of this.

FinalOverdrive

@hipsterelectron @sidereal @foolishowl I may even drop the subject all together. I just have one question: has GPL code been found in military, police, espionage, or surveillance equipment? I was under the impression that these entities avoid the GPL and related licenses because of the disclosure requirements. Now stuff under the MIT license, that might be more complicit.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@FinalOverdrive @sidereal @foolishowl not that i'm aware of and that's a good question

FinalOverdrive

@hipsterelectron @sidereal @foolishowl it may turn out you're worrying over nothing with the GPL. The disclosure requirements themselves may render GPL code Kryptonite for the military industrial complex. Now the permissive MIT license...that may be more cause for concern.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@FinalOverdrive @sidereal @foolishowl i use the GPL to protect my own labor for vaguely similar reasons even though it encodes no labor protections. i'm worried however especially with the discussion of "open source" "AI" that we may find corporate use of A?GPL code in e.g. a missile where (like nvidia's "open source" driver) the hardware/firmware remains a secret