The original definition of free software is a bit outdated. I’ve written a new manifesto explaining why today's free software should care not only about the availability of source code.
I’d like your honest opinion on my short piece:
https://qwaderton.org/tfbsd.html
#FreeSoftware #OpenSource #SelfHosted #SoftwareEngineering #Privacy #Suckless
@atarwn Honest opinion:
- Freedom 0 is basically redundant - Current definitions of FOSS account for situations where non-free services are required to use free software - it's called source available.
- Freedom 1 (architecture legibility) and 3 are basically "freedom from bad developers" which I don't really know how that's relevant
- Freedom 2 - right to exit is very valid and often overlooked
- Freedom 4 is valid, especially the "transparent interfaces"
@NasaGuy tysm! I've refined the wording for Freedoms 1 and 3 in the latest revision -- otherwise, I'd be talking bad about software like Blender, which wasn't the intent, because it is good, just inherently complex.
As for Freedom 0: this definition is strictly about fully free and autonomous software. Calling OSS that fundamentally depends on proprietary external services "FOSS" is exactly the illusion of freedom that I oppose.
@atarwn Okay I tend to agree, with the exception of Bitwarden. Their server software is indeed proprietary BUT you can absolutly use Bitwarden without their SAAS. You can use third party local servers like Vaultwarden, and it's natively supported. In this case I would say that Bitwarden is FOSS, but the company has a separate proprietary piece of software.
That's beside the point though.
Atarwn Gard
NasaGuy 
