Conversation

Notices

1. cj 🇺🇸🇨🇭 (cj@mastodon.technology)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Jul-2019 18:46:23 UTC cj 🇺🇸🇨🇭

   #Tusky still does not violate the #FLOSS 0th pillar, yet another explanation:

   https://forum.f-droid.org/t/tusky-is-nonfree/6448/36

   • soloojos (Mastodon) repeated this.
   • cj 🇺🇸🇨🇭 (cj@mastodon.technology)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Jul-2019 18:53:59 UTC cj 🇺🇸🇨🇭

     in reply to

     I find it incredibly surprising that many #FOSS or #FLOSS folk take the 0th pillar's "freedom of use" to mistakenly mean "freedom of usage by creating a software feature" instead of the true intended meaning: "freedom of usage under the license conditions".

     Because that's what RMS has always been about: the software licenses being symmetrical in power between the distributor of software and receiver of software. It creates a level playing field in terms of what "politics" are contained in the software.

     soloojos (Mastodon) repeated this.
   • cj 🇺🇸🇨🇭 (cj@mastodon.technology)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Jul-2019 18:57:26 UTC cj 🇺🇸🇨🇭

     in reply to

     Because that is the core of Software Freedom/Liberty: the right for a Person to take a software that expresses a [political] view they disagree with, obtain a copy of that software with equal capability as the distributor, modify that [political] view to be more amenable, and then redistribute it without any additional licensing burdens.

     It's never about what specific views or capabilities are in the software itself. Heck, you could fork and purposefully add bugs and it is still no less Freedom respecting.

     soloojos (Mastodon) repeated this.
   • cj 🇺🇸🇨🇭 (cj@mastodon.technology)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Jul-2019 19:01:54 UTC cj 🇺🇸🇨🇭

     in reply to

     So trying to argue the 0th pillar "freedom of use" is about specific software capabilities is mistaken. It's a gateway to the un-reconcilable "well N users demand my software have feature X, and an equal number also demand an incompatible feature Y." How could one ever satisfy the 0th pillar under this condition, and why would RMS never discuss this situation?

     Perhaps because it is the wrong interpretation. :) RMS spends time at the "licensing level", not at the "what does your software do exactly" level.

     soloojos (Mastodon) repeated this.