Mastodawn

https://small-tech.org/about/#small-technology

Aral Balkan Dec 10

Because “Free and Open Source Software isn’t about freedom/privacy/human rights/democracy” is one helluva take.

(And yes, you’re right, “open source” isn’t about any of those things. It’s just about the source being openly available. Not about protecting its openness or anything. It’s open as in “open for business.” But free (as in freedom) software/technology…? Well, I guess some of us would beg to differ.)

Oh, and if you want a philosophy/movement that isn’t shy or apologetic about being about freedom/privacy/human rights/democracy, see Small Tech:

#FOSDEM #openSource #freeSoftware #SmallTech #freedom #privacy #humanRights #democracy

Small Technology Foundation: About

We’re a tiny and independent two-person not-for-profit based in Ireland. We’re working on building the Small Web.

john r red-horse Dec 10

@aral

A fair bit of your declaration seems like a straw man to me.

I've always interpreted free to mean free of payment cost. Free of cost has never meant freedom in the free from tyranny sense.

Open source? Well, open to acquire and scrutinize, etc. Also, are you saying there are no protections available for open source, that something like one of the GPLs doesn't protect the open source itself?

Elia Dec 10

@jrredho you should read this book https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/faif-2.0.pdf

@aral

David Culley Dec 10

@jrredho You are wrong. On so many levels that I don't even want to correct you because it would be too much work.

FOSS says literally everywhere "free as in free speech, not free as in free beer" and yet you still thought "free as in free beer".

john r red-horse Dec 11

@davidculley

And yet, nowhere in common places, such as in the Overview section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software is there even a hint at your take.

If there is are specific organizations that are based on the definition in that overview, yet have more stringent philosophical criteria, then fine, it doesn't have to be universal.

No wonder this is confusing for some.

Free and open-source software - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

David Culley Dec 11

@jrredho The Wikipedia page you referenced literally links to the following page in the very first paragraph:

> FOSS is an inclusive umbrella term encompassing free software and open-source software.

And if you follow that link, you can read:

> Thus, free software means that computer users have the freedom to cooperate with whom they choose, and to control the software they use. To summarize this into a remark distinguishing libre (freedom) software from gratis (zero price) software, the Free Software Foundation says: "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of 'free' as in 'free speech', not as in 'free beer'".[22] (See Gratis versus libre.)

This is exactly what I said. And the opposite of what you said.

Free software - Wikipedia

john r red-horse Dec 11

@davidculley

I see your point. If it is so central to the entire concept, I think it would be better moved into the Overview itself.

As for the link, I take issue with the last clause in the first sentence: "to control the software they use". Should that be "to control what software they use"? I use some gratis software, but I have zero control over it.

The FSF is one organization, albeit a vital one. No one has to follow their philosophy in creating a distinction of free vs gratis.

marado Dec 12

@jrredho @davidculley the FSF is "just one organization", but it is also the organization that coined "Free Software" and defined the term. The Free Software Definition is consensual and not up for debate, even if there are those (like apparently yourself) who meet with the term before knowing its actual definition and meaning.

john r red-horse Dec 12

@marado

Here is text from FreeBSD:

FreeBSD is free

While you might expect an operating system with these features to sell for a high price, FreeBSD is available free of charge and comes with the source code. If you would like to purchase or download a copy to try out, more information is available.

We could do this all day.

Yes, the FSF are a vital organization, and they have their own take on "free". But they are by no means the only one. Every one of those others can re-define "free".

https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/introduction/#goals

marado Dec 12

@jrredho "being free" is one thing, "being free software" another. That said, FreeBSD -is- Free Software, they state so in several places, and when they do so, it is clear that they mean "Free Software" as FSF defines it. One example can be read here:

"The goals of the FreeBSD Project are to provide software that may be used for any purpose and without strings attached. Many of us have a significant investment in the code (and project) and would certainly not mind a little financial compensation now and then, but we are definitely not prepared to insist on it. We believe that our first and foremost "mission" is to provide code to any and all comers, and for whatever purpose, so that the code gets the widest possible use and provides the widest possible benefit. This is, we believe, one of the most fundamental goals of Free Software and one that we enthusiastically support."

But you're right: we could be here all day and I really am not interested in an endless debate on something that seems to me quite clear: there is a clear definition of Free Software, published by FSF in February 1986 and maintained by them since then. Others might try to re-define "Free Software" to mean something else or something less, but this will still be the consensual definition, which shouldn't be a surprise.

Chapter 1. Introduction

This chapter covers various aspects of the FreeBSD Project, such as its history, goals, development model, and so on

FreeBSD Documentation Portal

john r red-horse Dec 12

@marado

Btw, I am not and have not been debating what the FSF means by FOSS. I am saying that the FSF have a different meaning when they say FOSS from others.

Putting their FOSS definition on all FOSS and making it a 1-to-1 identity is wrong. It's really that simple.

marado Dec 12

@jrredho FSF does not define FOSS, they define Free Software, just like OSI defines Open Source.

All understandings that I know of about what FOSS means seems to be either that it means "Free Software and Open Source" or "Free Software or Open Source". Maybe there are other understandings or definitions (even if FOSDEM's seems to be FS && OSS).

What I claim isn't a matter of opinion is the Free Software Definition or the definition of Open Source. And you may not agree with me, but hey, I argued my case 🤷‍♂️

@jrredho @aral https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

eruwero Dec 11

The #GPL was written by people at the #FSF btw, and they are against the term "open source" exactly because it focuses on the wrong things (source being available, not freedom for users)

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.

Simon D.Dec 10

@aral Ahhh, Free Software is not about Freedom…

Well, well, well.

Aral Balkan Dec 10

@siltaer Free as in “not freedom”.

Simon D.Dec 10

@aral It must be the "other Free" like it was the "other private" in Mastodon confidentiality levels

(remember ? the public one)

mmu_man Dec 11

@aral @siltaer IIRC it's been already complicated to get them to add the "F" to OSDEM at first, and people had a hard time getting topics like legal and policy in… Which is also why some people started OFFDEM to address these.

Charles U. Farley Dec 10

@aral It baffles me that people think there's any point to FOSS besides improving freedom/privacy/human rights/democracy.

They should fire that guy.

@freakazoid
FOSDEM is not my employer, so they can't fire me.

FOSDEM is a non-profit, all its organizers are volunteers who do this (largely thankless) work because they care about free software and/or open source.

I've also been active in the free software community as a Debian Developer and elsewhere for almost 25 years now, so trust me when I say I know what 'free software' is about.
@aral

@wouter No, you absolutely do not. You're just a techbro powering the destruction of the open Internet and the war on general purpose computing. For free, for some bizarre reason.

@aral

@freakazoid You have an opinion, and that's valid. My opinion is different.

Free software is not about the open internet. Free software is not about general purpose computing. Free software is not about democracy. Free software is not about privacy.

Those are all important things, and I support many of them! And free software will help you in those endeavours in a very big way.

But they're not free software, by themself. Free software is, well, free software. Nothing more.

@wouter You don't even understand what the word "free" means in "free software".

@freakazoid Please stop confusing "I disagree with you" with "I don't know what I'm talking about". You do not hold the absolute truth (and neither do I).

@wouter If you knew what you were talking about you'd respond to what I said instead of assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Free software isn't just about freedom to use the software you happen to make. It's about the freedom to use *my* computer. *My* printer. *My* phone. Not to have these devices be controlled by their manufacturer to the point that we're really just paying rent up front.

But because ESR came along and convinced so many of you that it's really just about the development process and access to the source code, and businesses were our friends, we now live in a world where Google takes that "free" kernel and used it to built a portable telescreen we all have to carry around.

But if your point is really that free software is about nothing at all that anyone who's not a techbro would care about, as Aral said that's quite the self-own.

@wouter But, honestly, if the "free software" weren't full of people such as yourself, we never would have reached this point. And yeah, I guess kinda by definition the movement is about what the mass of its members think it's about, so: nothing that actually matters.

@freakazoid

Free software isn't just about freedom to use the software you happen to make. It's about the freedom to use my computer. My printer. My phone. Not to have these devices be controlled by their manufacturer to the point that we're really just paying rent up front.

There's not a hair on my head that does not agree with this, and you thinking otherwise only shows that you completely missed my point.

@freakazoid Free Software is about the 4 freedoms, and the benefits that flow from that into use of that software, which includes things like allowing you make your computer (or printer) do what you want.

There are tangentially related causes, such as privacy, democracy, and freedom of expression, that are relevant and valid, and that I think are very important, but that, while free software can enormously help you achieving, are not directly part of the goals of Free Software.

@freakazoid And I have this (annoying, I know) habit of not conflating everything I care about into everything I do. I care about privacy, but I understand that not everyone in the Free Software community does, and honestly, I think that's fine. To me, it's not required that everything is perfect in every possible way.

When I think about free software, the base of everything is the four freedoms, nothing more.

When I think about privacy, the context is very different.

@wouter Now I feel like we're getting somewhere. In particular we've found the root cause of the free software movement's irrelevance: y'all are fine rubbing shoulders with Nazis. In fact, your "zeroth freedom" is about the freedom to use free software to run death camps. Y'all are fine being IBM to the Nazis as long as you get to use your printer.

@freakazoid you keep putting words in my mouth, and I don't appreciate it. Bye.

@wouter What does it mean to say they're not "directly" part of the movement's goals if the movement's goals are meaningless without them? And what is even the point of the movement's goals if it's not to help achieve the others? What are you saying, that you'd like to be able to use your computer the way you want, but if the fascists take over, oh well?

@freakazoid I'm saying that for an organization, it's not possible or desirable to form an opinion about everything. I don't think FOSDEM has an opinion on privacy, human rights, or democracy, even though most of its members do (some quite vocally so).

I'm saying it's OK for FOSDEM to be like that, as long as the opinion on free software is there and is clear.

I'm personally worried by the current backslide to facism, but it's not something I deal with in the context of FOSDEM.

Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO Dec 14

@freakazoid @wouter @aral imagine calling a Debian developer a "tech bro". Check yourself, Charles.

Ben Cox Dec 12

@wouter @aral @freakazoid I'm with Charles. You evidently have no fucking clue what free software is about.

@ben So what's your background then? Obviously you think you know better, so educate me. Why should I believe you, and not my 25 years of actual fucking experience in the field?

Or are you just someone else who believes "my beliefs are the only valid ones and if you disagree you're an idiot"? That way lies facism.

I've explained my opinions. It's OK if you disagree with them, and I'm happy to have a civilized discussion about them, but don't insult me just because you disagree.

Ben Cox Dec 12

@wouter 40. STFU.

@ben 40 is a number, not an explanation, but you obviously are not interested in an actual conversation and only in more insults, so, plonk.

Aral Balkan Dec 12

@freakazoid Why should they fire him? They agree with him.

(The whole volunteer thing aside.)

the elder sea Dec 10

@aral "Oh, my political project isn't political at all"
-white dudes everywhere

sortius

Dec 10

@aral there's a reason I ran like the wind from open source communities.

There's dudes like this everywhere in them. As far as I'm concerned, if you're not developing for human rights, you're developing for fascism

Tywèle Dec 10

@sortius that sounds like flawed logic and a very black and white view.

sortius

Dec 10

@Tywele nope, it's not, I'd suggest you look up both "logic" and "world view"

mray Dec 10

@aral Silly you! "F" in FOSDEM stands for "Open Source".

schrotthaufen Dec 10

@aral Why do so many supposedly smart people think tech is not inherently political?

@aral Don't know which part of "I don't speak for FOSDEM" is so difficult to understand, but you do you.

Yes, Free Software is about politics. Which politics? Depends on who you ask. Some will say that freedom/privacy/human rights/democracy are part of that, but not everyone will, and that doesn't mean they're not part of the community.

This is an important debate but I don't think one in which FOSDEM as an organization has an opinion, even though some of its members might.

@aral My absolutely personal opinion in this debate: Open Source is about methodology, Free Software is about principles.

The principles in question are that everyone should have the freedom to modify software so it does what they need it to do, rather than what the author of the software wanted it to do. This does often include freedom of expression, privacy, human rights and democracy as a side benefit, but they're not why I care about free software.

@aral It also means that if you want to modify some free software so it can, say, control your military equipment, then that does not put you outside of the free software community, even though the free software community might have a larger percentage of people of people who are also pacifists than the general population.

But that's not an absolute, and to claim that free software is about human rights, privacy, or democracy is inaccurate, at best.

@aral Finally, on the specific subject of having Google as a sponsor, I have a personal opinion on that, but I'm not going to comment on that in public.

Aral Balkan Dec 12

@wouter Darling, three whole posts when you could’ve just written “I’m privileged and thus apolitical.”

@aral "I respectfully disagree with you, here's why" is absolutely not the same thing as "I'm apolitical", and it's rather arrogant (and, honestly, disgusting) of you to suggest otherwise.

*plonk*

@wouter 👋💩

If you're not going to comment about the terrifying privacy violations, complicity in war profiteering, enshittifacation, and the onslaught of other abuses by an enormous company that is moving to dominate all of our lives... Then what is even the point of you?

And WHO, exactly, "doesn't care" about privacy, democracy, or freedom of expression? I'm an angry goose now: WHO DOESNT CARE?? And why, good heavens, WHY would you be so blithely comfortable in community with those people???

While we don't even have the freedom to breathe clean air, drink clean water, or get our other most basic needs met, while gestapo are abducting the neighbors and our world is actually BURNING, nothing can be free. Not a damn thing.

@violetmadder You seem upset, you should take a breather.

I can agree with people on the cause of Free Software without agreeing on all their other causes.

And I'm not saying which causes; I agree with most of what you say, though not quite as angrily. It's just that there's a time and a place for everything, and a conference about "free software" is not the same thing as a conference about "privacy", even if the two are related.

@violetmadder
I also don't think things are quite that bleak, but then that might have something to do with me not being in the same country as you.

Violet Madder Dec 12

@wouter

We're on a trajectory that's on track to kill BILLIONS of human beings, with a B, by the end of the century unless something massively changes. The world is burning and society is in the midst of collapse, but of course you live in conditions comfortable enough to not feel the intense urgency or alarm felt by others less privileged. Yet.

So yeah, you bet I'm fucking upset and no I'm not going to fucking tone police myself out for a goddamned breather. This patronizing look-how-I'm-calmer-than-you act here falls right next to the other unconscious self-owns that you don't even realize keep proving our points.

Staying totally chill, apolitical, detached, shiny, plastic, and magnanimous about sharing community with eugenicists, war profiteers, surveillance states, enshittifiers, planetwreckers, mass murderers, stalkers, oligarchs, etc etc etc is not something to be proud of.

Jonathan Dowland Dec 12

@violetmadder @wouter sitting back and watching this shitshow of a thread, I’m astonished we progressives (yes, this includes @wouter who I’ve witnessed do amazing work, inside and outside of Debian, for decades) achieve *anything* with all the own-goal infighting.

@violetmadder
I'm not apolitical for having different political opinions to you.

I have only so much time in a day to care, so I prioritise. If you go and organise a protest against Google and that manages to make them slightly less evil, more power to you. I might even join (if it's within my means to do so). But it's not something that keeps me up at night. It's not my priority.

I'm not saying your cause is wrong, just that there are other causes that I find more important.

@violetmadder
In the mean time, while you go off and do all that, I'll sit here making sure you can actually do that without being spied upon, by contributing to an operating system you can trust to do what you want it to do, not what some shitty billionaire halfway across the world wants.

And I'll do it on my terms, which is that anyone can use what I produce for any purpose, because that to me is the most core of all cores to free software. And that includes you using

it for things some people might consider evil, which might include things like the military, a tobacco company, a meat processing plant, the Walt Disney company, or, heck, those touch screen ordering booths at some fast food places.

Because if you're going to insist I must be upset about your other causes, why stop there?

That's why I don't do it, and why I say that the cause of free software, *while related* to other causes, is still not the same.
@violetmadder