Matthew GarrettPeople will complain that a technology can be used to oppress user freedom while contributing to free software that gets used in literal weapons of war
I do entirely understand the idea that functionality that can be used against users (even if it can also be used to enhance user security) is bad, I just don't understand why people will simultaneously make that argument and support the idea that a software license that says "You may not use this software to murder people" is incompatible with the ideals of free software
DRM is pretty obviously something that inherently removes user freedom without benefit, and decrying it is entirely reasonable. Hardware identity and state attestation *can* be used for DRM, but can also be used for other purposes that improve things for users (like Signal verifying that it's communicating with a genuine enclave before disclosing any sensitive data), and attacking the technology rather than the ways it's used seems short-sighted
G@mjg59 this doesn't sound complicated. You may have a claim about whether this is good or bad but it's clearly not "free software" the way we use that term. Words mean what we want them to mean, trying to redefine them to equal whatever we think is good or bad just leaves them meaningless.
@mjg59 and without context I have to admit my first reaction is it wouldn't be very helpful to have hundreds of licenses that have various conflicting restrictions on which parties of which conflicts can use them. I suppose that's a slippery slope argument so maybe I regret it already.
Ian Turton@stark @mjg59 it's very difficult to determine if someone is breaking the GPL when they use (my) free software unless they are actively boasting about it. It would be even harder to enforce a no kill license, most of the military users of my software would claim they were using it defensively and it would be impossible for me to check, even with friendly nations like Germany, Finland and the UK. With hostile nations like North Korea I don't think I'll ever find out how they use it.
1/n
@stark @mjg59 I wrote up my thoughts about this a while back
https://blog.ianturton.com/foss/2022/03/11/open-source.html
Basically, it boils down to there's nothing I can do about it, my software is dual use and mapping has been a function of the military and or state enforcement of taxation since the beginning.
@stark I'm not saying that free software should be redefined, I'm saying that if someone is unconcerned about how free software is used then why are they concerned about how any other technology is used