Conversation

Notices

1. Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Sunday, 19-Feb-2023 04:08:26 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

   • Drew DeVault
   @ska @drewdevault Annoyingly, the problem is still the exact same one. I think we just forgot that it's not merely things like licenses, those are just mere tools.
   
   What's important is the community and making sure that all of us have digital rights.
   • Adrian Cochrane repeated this.
   • Wolf480pl (wolf480pl@mstdn.io)'s status on Sunday, 19-Feb-2023 04:19:15 JST Wolf480pl

     in reply to

     • Drew DeVault

     @lanodan @drewdevault @ska
     Free Software Definition talks about 4 essential freedoms, not in terms of whether a license preserves them, but in terms of whether the user has them.

     For example, freedom 1 - to modify and run modified versions - doesn't work if the software in question is Firefox and web standards are evolving so fast, that you can't reasonably keep a modified version functional for an extended period of time.

     Web browsers deny you that freedom through non-license means.
     1/

     Adrian Cochrane repeated this.
   • Wolf480pl (wolf480pl@mstdn.io)'s status on Sunday, 19-Feb-2023 04:19:35 JST Wolf480pl

     in reply to

     • Drew DeVault

     @lanodan @drewdevault @ska
     Another example is people who cannot program - they can never directly experience freedom 1.

     They can still benefit from it indirectly - eg. due to the power dynamics around free software making it likely that if the author adds an anti-feature, someone will make a fork without it, and our non-programmer will be able to use that fork.

     But such a person will never be able to fully experience software freedom.

     2/

     Adrian Cochrane repeated this.
   • Wolf480pl (wolf480pl@mstdn.io)'s status on Sunday, 19-Feb-2023 04:22:28 JST Wolf480pl

     in reply to

     • Drew DeVault

     @lanodan @drewdevault @ska
     Therefore, unlike Open Source, Free Software movement must not be limited to the matter of licenses.

     If we want to maximize the number of people who can experience Software Freedom, we need to make sure modifying the software people run is not just possible, but practical.

     Make simpler programs.

     Avoid feature creep, and situations that require perpetual updates.

     Teach people to program.

     Make it easy to download and build source of any software package.
     etc.
     3/3

     Adrian Cochrane repeated this.
   • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Sunday, 19-Feb-2023 04:40:50 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • Wolf480pl
     • Drew DeVault
     @wolf480pl @drewdevault @ska To me the skill issue isn't much of a problem.
     
     Right to Repair for example is still very important even if I do not possess the skills or tools, because it allows repair for anyone and not just the manufacturer.
     
     We should still teach people some basics, specially so they can make informed choices and have a degree of independence that maybe is enough for them to get the knowledge and skills they will need later.
     
     And a thing I'd rather see more on the legal side, is things like GDPR, because there's a lot of fundamental rights that are trampled over, and my own computers do not matter.