076 SNS

@ryo@social.076.ne.jp soystemd is surprisingly using gpl tho

@longyap I know, but what difference does it make if it's bloated spyware blatantly ignoring the UNIX phylosophy?
Same holds true for Audacity, it's loysensed under GPLv2 (probably the best GPL license ever), but despite that it has telemetry, the "®" soygn, a copyright (which is a scam) page (https://www.audacityteam.org/copyright/), and so on.
So the fact it's GPLv2 is very meaningless.
Sure, it's not in violation, but it shows how having a GPL license doesn't automatically make you FOSS.

@ryo @longyap
We can make a FOSS virus, I guess.

@udon@social.076.ne.jp @ryo@social.076.ne.jp that would be funny though foss ransomware

@ryo This is definition of Free Software (What is Free Software? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html).

There are 4 essential (0=run, 1=study, 2=redistribute, 3=modify).

This is definition of OSS (The Open Source Definition https://opensource.org/osd).

OSS has no 0=run freedom.

Free software is social movement for user free. OSS is software development method for performance/quality (by corporation).

I think FOSS is software license type (≒OSS). I think difference of FOSS and OSS term is not important. But difference of Free software and OSS is very important.

I think your request (privacy protection) exceeds over free software.

UNIX phylosophy is not related for free software (UNIX is not free).

systemd (GPL) and firefox (MPL) are free software license (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html).

You can modify systemd/firefox by your self. You are not restricted by using systemd/firefox. And your free is protected.

If you want to priority privacy exceeding free software, you can select and modify existing free software.

I think your opinion (systemd/firefox is not free) is wrong. I am FSF associate member. So I cannot miss your wrong opinion.
What is Free Software?
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation The Open Source Definition | Open Source Initiative Various Licenses and Comments about Them
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation

@gnusocialjp @ryo

But why should those "freedoms" be taken as axioms if they don't work in practice to bring anything positive?

For example, if a software has millions of lines of code, it is effectively unmodifiable. So how is it different than a closed source one?

Or if a corporation comes in and just takes over, and the forks never gain traction because they lack the marketing budget?

Or if the developers abuse the users with privacy violations?

Why is theory being considered over what actually happens?

@digdeeper @gnusocialjp @ryo
Following axiom is easier to the brain. You do not need to think. All you need to is to accept what the "good guys" say. You do not need to maintain or update your own "axiom" - just use someone else's.

I think another reason why it happens, is related to what we are taught to do in debates. You look up the most approved or authoritative source, stick to it no matter what happens, and you will win the debate (because the source weigh the most). We don't need to care or question why the source is authoritative because it doesn't make you win the debate.

@digdeeper @gnusocialjp @ryo It feels almost surreal to see someone else making the same arguments that I make. It would be nice to have more people doing it, so I don't have to explain to someone why Firefox is not free software for the billionth time, and how the FSF's four freedoms are not a complete list of all freedoms you can have in software.

Stupid people have to turn everything into a dogma. It's just four of more than four, and if those were the only ones, the concept of free software would be meaningless, it would basically just be open source, like Chromium and Firefox and all the other bloated open soyce spyware out there.

People have actually told me that free software doesn't have to respect your privacy because privacy is not one of the four freedoms. Absolutely retarded. If privacy doesn't matter in free software, then why is 90% of what Richard Stallman talks about in his speeches about privacy? Why did he say that he would not carry a phone EVEN IF it was fully free, because it would still track him?

It gets so tiring, constantly dealing with dumb motherfuckers.

@TerminalAutism @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @ryo
I see the confusion point is interpreting FOSS as an axiom (referencing the FSF's 4 rules), or interpreting FOSS by the meaning (FREE and open source, and free as in freedom)

@TerminalAutism @digdeeper @gnusocialjp No privacy = no freedom.
And no freedom = no privacy.
It goes hand in hand.
Even if there's "harmless" spying, it's still spying, which is still no privacy, which is still no freedom.

@udon @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @ryo I don't agree with that. Interpreting it by the meaning is the only correct way to interpret that. These are words in the English language and they have meaning, and if they made up a term, it would probably be an ideology, and I would be against it. Software can't be free software if it's not free, if it does not respect the user's freedom, including the freedom to not be spied on. Anything else is a corruption of language. Saying that free software doesn't have to be free is an inversion of reality.

@TerminalAutism @udon @digdeeper @gnusocialjp Made up words have other purposes than just ideological ones, live evading censorship I mean word filters, to describe words for what they really are, and so on.
For example, some time ago I wanted to criticize the lethal injections on a Japanese BBS, but they would prevent you from posting if you included the word "ワクチン" (vaccine), so I had to change it into "毒チン" (literally: poisoncine) to get around the censorship.
I chose that word because loli frog already used that word, and I think it's fitting as a description for what it truly is anyway.

As for describing words, for example I usually say "Goolag" instead of "Google", because they will ban you for wrongthink, like how the Soyviets would put you into a gulag for wrongthink.
Or "scamdemic", because viruses don't exist, and epidemics and pandemics are ALWAYS used as a money making operation and making you ethernally sick (and thus dependent on the hell care soystem), or kill you if you're unfortunate, so it's always the elites scamming you really hard (especially once every decade).

@ryo @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @udon Of course, new words can be fine, especially in those cases, and some words are used as actual weapons, like the word "vaccine". And all words are made up, so of course it can be fine to make them up, and maybe have to, because I personally am frustrated with the limitations of spoken language, I just can't express myself very well. In fact, I'm going to make up one new powerful word right now, and it will be... niggot.

@ryo @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @udon Also, I should have mentioned... I assume that Japanese must be considerably more difficult to censor compared to other languages. Especially when it's already a language that has so many words that are written the same way in kana. I'm sure it's harder for machines to censor things that are entirely based on context.

@TerminalAutism @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @udon Depends though.
Like, the most common way of saying "why" is なぜ, which can also be written as ナゼ or 何故 or ナゼ or naze and so on.
If all of them are censored, you can replace it with どうして (doushite), which also adds the benefit of being romanized as "dosite", "dousite", and "doshite".
Otherwise you can opt for kanji with the same reading (although they mean completely different things), like 名瀬 or 奈眥 (in both cases the words don't actually exist).
But at some point, even in Japanese you'll run out of ways to write "why", and that's when we need to replace the word with something different altogether.

So in the end, vocabulary censorship is yet another game of Wack-a-Mole.

@ryo @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @udon Well, the advantage is that it's harder to ban specific things in languages that are more contextual without completely crippling the language to the point that people can't even use it anymore. Like, when a word can mean many different things, they may want to ban it because of one meaning, but not be able to because some of those other meanings may be essential for the language to function. And in a language that has fewer sounds in general, that tends to happen more. Plus there are multiple writing systems, so it's easier to get creative than it is in western languages.

One example that maybe you heard off... I think it may have been the media, but whoever it was, retards were getting super offended because Japanese sportsball players were saying 逃げる, and to their tiny brains that sounds like nigger. Well, what if people start sending にげる to Obama? Are they going to ban saying "to run away/avoid/win without being overtaken/escape/fail to hold an ideal posture"? You can more easily use words that sound similar enough and are too essential to be banned. Silly, example, but I think it makes the point.

There are also no spaces, that's another thing to get creative with. That's another hurdle for software to overcome, being able to tell when one word is ending and another is beginning. I bet you could do things with that too. I think these things definitely make censorship through software much more complicated.

@TerminalAutism @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @udon

> One example that maybe you heard off... I think it may have been the media

I didn't hear about that, I don't follow the media, it's all propaganda and advertisement anyway.

> retards were getting super offended because Japanese sportsball players were saying 逃げる, and to their tiny brains that sounds like nigger. Well, what if people start sending にげる to Obama?

The appropriate response would be to double down and say 逃げる even more often.
"It's not your language, accept the fact that the entire world isn't exactly like Commiefornia."

@ryo @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @udon I'm not sure how exactly it started. It may have been just retards on Twatter, actually. I saw it on whatever imageboard I used at the time, that and/or a video making fun of the retards. No idea what year it was, but it wasn't that long ago. Maybe 2019 or 2018. Not sure which sportsball it was. Probably povertyball?

TO: @ryo @digdeeper CC: @udon @TerminalAutism

Sorry for late. Surely, I understand RMS supporting privacy.

If software is free (4 rules), we can do that (0=run, 1=study, 2=redistribute, 3=modify).

>For example, if a software has millions of lines of code, it is effectively unmodifiable. So how is it different than a closed source one?

Closed source code has no 1=study free. You and community/company can modify it even big code. This is important difference for free. I modify chromium code (about 5 million of lines in total) by my work.

I think privacy is software feature same as performance, file size, support platform.

What people judge to be harmful and what is harmless about software functions depends on the law, individual subjectivity, and the times.

You might think of Firefox or systemd as spyware, but others might not think of spyware.

Web browsers are software whose main purpose is communication. When software communicates without permission, some people call it spyware, but for software, it only means communication. Whether or not you consider it spyware (harmful) is up to you.

The user is not restricted in any way by spyware for someone else.

In the first place, free software is defined as satisfying 4 rules, so if you add privacy protection to this, it's a different thing.

You should use another name such as Ethical Source | The Ethical Source Working Group Blog.

So firefox/systemd are free software by definition.
The Organization for Ethical Source supports a global and multidisciplinary community devoted to centering justice and equity in the practice of open source.

@gnusocialjp @TerminalAutism @digdeeper @udon

> I think privacy is software feature same as performance, file size, support platform.

No, software feature is spyware.
Code is private by default.

違います。
ソフトウェア機能性のはスパイウェアですよ。
普通に、ソースコードでスパイウェアが入っていません。

> What people judge to be harmful and what is harmless about software functions depends on the law, individual subjectivity, and the times.

First, the only real law is "do no harm", everything else is a scam.
What you're saying is like saying "whether stabbing people with a knife hurts or not depends on the law, individual subjectivity, and the times".

まずは、実の法律は「被害しないで」しかありません。
それ以外、全部はただの詐欺です。
GNUSocialJPさんと言った通り、「誰かナイフで刺すのは痛むかどうか法律、個別の主観性、及び時間次第だ」と同じでしょ。。。

> You might think of Firefox or systemd as spyware, but others might not think of spyware.

Sorry, but if it sends telemetry, it's just objectively spyware.

すみませんが、テレメトリーを送信したら、客観的なスパイウェアですよ。

> Web browsers are software whose main purpose is communication. When software communicates without permission, some people call it spyware, but for software, it only means communication. Whether or not you consider it spyware (harmful) is up to you.

Web browsers main purpose is viewing HTML pages, communication is just a feature.

ウェブブラウザの本目的はHTMLページを表示することです。
コミュニケーションはただの機能性です。

> The user is not restricted in any way by spyware for someone else.

If you're watched, you have no freedom.
If you have no freedom, you're restricted.

睨まれたら、自由がありません。
自由がなければ、限っています。

@ryo @gnusocialjp @digdeeper @udon "I think not raping is a dick feature just like size and performance. Whether people judge rape to be harmful and what is harmful about rape depends on the law, individual subjectivity, and the times."

@gnusocialjp @digdeeper @ryo @udon I am not a moral relativist. Moral relativism and having no morality at all are the same thing. Government laws are not morality, quite the opposite. Morality is built into reality, it's not something that humans decide. It's an aspect of logic, and ignoring it leads to disaster just like ignoring the laws of physics.

People don't want to be spied on, so they should not spy on others. I don't see the corporate psychopaths trying to get rid of privacy live-streaming their entire lives for the world to see. Where can I go to see the Google CEO and Zuckerberg taking a shit? Oh, I can't, because they monitor everything that people do, but they are not going to do that to themselves.

They do everything in secret, they conspire against humanity in secret, they conspire to create a future for other people without informing or consulting them. It's not fine to spy on them somehow, but they do it to others. That is hypocritical nonsense and a crime against logic and moral law. Simple. Humans don't decide that, this is divine territory, not dumb human monkey territory.

@udon @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @ryo Okay, so by your argument, the government is the arbiter of morality, and it doesn't exist, it's just something that the slave masters make up. Go live in China or North Korea and come back when you believe in the golden rule and in logic and in respecting other people's natural rights. Gore and animal violence alert for people that believe that morality exists. Here are some results of that mentality. The government doesn't say that these things are wrong, so by your standards they must not be. Here is the kind of world that it creates:
sensitive media
sensitive media
sensitive media
sensitive media
sensitive media

@TerminalAutism @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @ryo
>So firefox/systemd are free software by definition.
Yes, as gnusocialjp said those software satisfied the 4 FOSS rules, so firefox/systemd are free software by definition. Avoid misinformation like this too: https://forum.f-droid.org/t/why-is-the-normal-firefox-not-available-in-f-droid/11645

(Rephrased to make it sound less "aggressive")

> First, the only real law is "do no harm", everything else is a scam.
> What you're saying is like saying "whether stabbing people with a knife hurts or not depends on the law, individual subjectivity, and the times".
Personal complains should not be treated as harm. One should not be subjective.
The law system solves this problem.

Law is not made by corrupted and uneducated people like us, therefore Law is objective and Law is the only truth.
If law say something is legal, it is harmless.
If law say something is illegal, it is harmful.

To further understand the law system, let us do some exercises.

Law is objective and Law is the only truth.
According to the law rape is illegal.
Therefore rape is harmful.
Q.E.D.

Law is objective and Law is the only truth.
According to the law making spyware and distributing spyware is legal.
Therefore spyware is harmless.
Q.E.D.

Again, personal complains should not be treated as harm. We need to be scientific and rational. If we need to declare something as harmful, we need proof it scientifically.

@udon @TerminalAutism @digdeeper @gnusocialjp Please note, most Japanese (especially the ones who don't understand at least 1 western language) don't really understand this type of sarcasm.

TO: @ryo @TerminalAutism CC: @digdeeper @udon

ryo, you are right. I am Japanese. Almost Japanese cannot understand slung or sarcasm. We do not learn these in school and so on. And translator software cannot translate completely.

So please use plain English (or add description). Almost Japanese can only understand these (slung or sarcasm) in Japanese.

@gnusocialjp @TerminalAutism @digdeeper @udon I am Japanese too, but I can speak 2 languages (which is why neither is perfect), and I understand sarcasm because I got used to it.
But I know that people who are just learning or use a translator don't understand, which is why I try to avoid it when talking to you.

私も日本人ですが、2ヶ国語を話せますので(だからどっちも完璧ではありません)、皮肉なれたからわかります。
でも、英語を勉強中又は翻訳機を利用方は皮肉をわからないとわかりますので、GNUSocialJPさんと話したら遠慮します。

TO: @ryo CC: @udon @TerminalAutism @digdeeper

udon. Thanks your comment. Your comment is same as what I want to say.

ryo. I discussed with udon about harm in previous this posts https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/169756#notice-359333 (above this post. この投稿が議論の最後の投稿で、この投稿より上で議論しています。).

If you think systemd/firefox are harm spyware, you must prove it objective (ex: law). I could not find evidence about systemd and firefox privacy leak.

The number of requests and tracking information provided by the site are not personal information. Individuals cannot be identified no matter how many times they are sent.

And in fact, free software definition do not require privacy protection.

If you want to include privacy protection, you should use another term (such as Ethical Source).

So firefox/systemd are free software. I could not miss your statement of "firefox/systemd are not free software" as I am an FSF associate member.

That's all what I want to say.

It is OK you think free. Ignore if you don't like it. If you ignore, it is end of my discussion.
Conversation - gnusocial.jp

@ryo @TerminalAutism @digdeeper @gnusocialjp
I guess if that was commented by some random person it won't be sarcasm. That wasn't very objective.

People have actually told me that free software doesn’t have to respect your privacy because privacy is not one of the four freedoms.

@TerminalAutism @gnusocialjp @digdeeper @ryo It doesn’t, though. Privacy is an issue separate from freedom. They are both important and connected, but that doesn’t make them one and the same.

@tirifto @gnusocialjp @digdeeper @ryo You can't have freedom without privacy. When you have privacy, you have freedom in private, by default, or it's not private. When you can't have privacy, you are not free to have privacy so you're not free. Actually, why do I even bother? Why even explain this? If you are at all capable of cognition, just listening to Richard Stallman speak one time should be enough. Not that even he is the arbiter of what the word free means, he's just the one that chose to call his thing free software.

Anyway, since people can't agree on the most basic of logic like "words mean what they mean" and have to poison everything with ideological bullshit nonsense, the term free software is now cancerous and ruined forever and can't be saved. I may abandon it entirely and just say "software that respects your freedom", which is long as fuck but should shut up the retards... probably not.

Coming up with another label should not be necessary when the English language already has the words for that, but again, stupid people have killed the language to the point that words have no meaning, so it's now unusable. Maybe it should just be fuck you software, maybe that's better. God, I hate people so much. I shouldn't even post this, I should just delete it and go back to pretending that other people don't exist.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

> You can't have freedom without privacy.

@TerminalAutism @gnusocialjp @digdeeper @ryo I don’t think privacy is a condition for freedom, at least not in this context. If a program spies on me, and I am free to make it stop, it respects my freedom (in that regard); if I’m not free to make it stop, it disrespects my freedom. Likewise, if a program is _not_ spying on me, and I am free to make it spy on me, it respects my freedom; if I’m not allowed to make it spy on me, my freedom is not being respected.

> When you can't have privacy, you are not free to have privacy so you're not free.

Yes, but that’s a different problem altogether. Not having privacy is very different from not being able to have privacy. It's the difference between not having curtains covering your windows (because you don’t really care if your neighbours can see you at the moment), and not being able or allowed to cover your windows with curtains.

@tirifto @gnusocialjp @TerminalAutism @digdeeper Privacy is as separate from freedom as a steering wheel is separate from a car.
The car functions without a steering wheel, but if you can steer it in any other direction than forward, it's meaningless.
Likewise, without privacy, freedom is meaningless.

@tirifto @gnusocialjp @TerminalAutism @digdeeper @ryo
> If a program spies on me, and I am free to make it stop, it respects my freedom (in that regard)
Yes I agree, like a malware licensed with GPL respects your freedom. Because you can make it malware-less. A closed source malware without free license disrespects your freedom because we are not allowed to make it spy on us, and our freedom is not being respected. Both do nasty things, but the former is FOSS by definition - then what? What are the 4 FOSS laws for? Maybe some just wanted to win a debate on application of the 4 FOSS laws (instead on the meaning of "freedom"). But let's look in a more practical view about freedom.

We can only essentially have freedom when the predictors big bad guys has not chosen us as the next prey. This can only be guaranteed by protecting our privacy, not showing anything unnecessary without consent - not even something they claim as "harmless" (I would never never expect a thief to broadcast "Yay I am going to steal someone's thing!!! Try to catch me ;p !!!") . Similar to the "Nothing to Hide" argument. Privacy is not included inside the 4 FOSS laws, but it is essential for protecting freedom in practice.

And when everyone keep a blind eye on "minor harms", once they have grown enough popularity, they will be enforced as part of our life and essentially we will lose our freedom. A live example is the current web environment (abuse of web "standards" and the abuse of JavaScript and Cloudflare) and the trend of systemd (Hey, systemd is FOSS!). The 4 FOSS laws does not, and probably cannot consider such problems.

Axioms in general have the problem of oversimplifying things. They limit our thinking. They are only fine when applied to simple matters or simply used as a reference, or when used in an academic debate (there's usually no prize winning an online debate, however).

Complexity and readability of source code is another issue on the 4 FOSS laws.

@udon @tirifto @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @ryo The four freedoms were a mistake in the first place, that's my take. To me they are invalid to begin with because the word free already has a meaning. There is no reason to redefine what is free. But also, if that had to be made at all, they should have predicted that stupid people would assume that it's a restrictive list that takes away all freedoms other than those four, and that there can be no other freedoms. Or at least they should have addressed that later. They should just add another one that says "and all the other freedoms not mentioned here".

Not that it should be necessary because again, Richard Stallman talks about privacy more than about anything else. Clearly it's a priority. Not that he has any right to choose what free means when it already has a meaning, that should definitely not be changed. Also, he's an idiot, so, if one person could decide that at all, it definitely shouldn't be him. To him freedom is the freedom to be enslaved by the government and take ze shot like you were told to. The only case in which he cares about actual freedom is in software.

@TerminalAutism @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @ryo @tirifto
> But also, if that had to be made at all, they should have predicted that stupid people would assume that it's a restrictive list that takes away all freedoms other than those four, and that there can be no other freedoms.
I guess Stallman wanted to use the 4 freedoms for the movement. I won't say it's good or bad but in every movement or protests there must be some catchy slogans, otherwise the mobs will never listen (You can see many care the 4 freedoms other than freedom). I think the production of those mobs is root of the problem.

@TerminalAutism @udon @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @tirifto We're just in such a sad state of the world that the human population is so dumb, they even have to be told that the sky is blue by an official institution or "credible" soyces, otherwise they refuse to believe that the sky is blue.

@ryo @TerminalAutism @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @tirifto
Oh I forgot that we can do reverse engineering too. We still have the freedom to remove the malware feature that we don't want.

@ryo @TerminalAutism @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @tirifto
Of course, it doesn't meet the 4 FOSS laws.
Therefore it is not free software by definition and thus it does not respect your freedom.
Q.E.D.

@TerminalAutism @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @tirifto @udon
The government: "The sky is red, anyone saying that the sky is blue is a conspiracy theorist."
Normie: npc "THE SKY IS RED."
Me: yes "The sky seems blue to me."
Normie: npcmad "YOU'RE A CRAZY ALT-RIGHT NAZI CONSPIRACY THEORIST AND A RACIST AND A TRANSPHOBE!! YOU ARE A DANGER TO SOCIETY FOR SAYING THAT THE SKY IS BLUE!!"

@udon @gnusocialjp @tirifto @TerminalAutism @digdeeper @ryo

Anyone noticed that the (((GPL))) + (((FSF))) and (((Linux Foundation))) never include

Freedom of Speech

Its missing that level of Freedom

RS is a Fat Jew

@charliebrownau @udon @gnusocialjp @tirifto @TerminalAutism @digdeeper Fair is fair, the movements were made back in the 80's and 90's, back when speech was still free by default

@ryo @gnusocialjp @TerminalAutism @digdeeper And would you say that a car in which you can easily install a steering wheel is equivalent to a car which is built in a way that makes installing a steering wheel nigh impossible, unless you essentially build yourself a new car?

@tirifto @gnusocialjp @TerminalAutism @digdeeper Steering wheel is a paid DLC, because Car as a Soyvice.

@udon @gnusocialjp @TerminalAutism @digdeeper @ryo Well put; I think I understand the other point of view being presented here better now. Freedom is being viewed in the big picture, as a think of its own, and freedom-respecting software must be software that does nothing to harm it. And I would agree that it’s practical, but not more so than the 4 freedoms.

The 4 freedoms don’t care about other aspects of your life; they are limited in scope precisely to what you can do, specifically what you can do with the program. And you are right in saying that does not ascertain your freedom outside that scope. But I think that scope is, in itself, very practical. If nothing else, it allows the program to be changed to help you outside of the scope it already does; it’s the minimal prerequisite to change how the program affects everything else. It’s often not enough in the big picture (when looking beyond just ‘software freedom’), but it sets a solid foundation which allows people to build the other important stuff on top of it.

I think it makes sense to call this ‘software freedom’, as opposed to ‘freedom’ as a general concept, and I do often use the term ’software freedom’ when talking about ‘free software’ (as defined by the FSF). It’s the part of freedom that pertains to the software and nothing else. And it can be useful to consider on its own. But of course it’s not enough, and I suppose I can see why’d you want ‘freedom’ to not refer only to that.

Complexity and readability of source code is another issue on the 4 FOSS laws.

Yes, and an important one. I sometimes read that not taking them into consideration is a failing of the 4 freedoms, but it’s really us who must do that. Most people in the sphere have been accustomed to the technical/theoretical determination of freedom: if it’s technically feasible for the 4 freedoms to be exercised, the program is free. But how practical it is to do so? The ability to edit the source code is normally taken as the dividing line, and I’m not sure there’s a better line to be drawn. How easy it is to exercise the freedoms is subjective, but it’s safe to say that e.g. Guix does a much better job on the freedom front than e.g. Chromium, which does make it across the line, but the ‘freedom’ it gives us remains largely useless in practice.

@ryo Followed by news broadcasts about skyisblueists, and the population obsessively staring at the sky as their pockets & homes are being robbed

FWIW, I tend to agree with that. with the four freedoms, you can improve the software so that the version you run respects your privacy, even if it the version you obtained didn't

@ryo @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @tirifto @udon I got so tired of explaining basic shit to people over and over again, in vain. Just write articles or make videos about it. Doesn't matter what it is, just make something that you can link to so you don't have to repeat yourself and so you don't get to the levels of "fuck people" that I'm at right now.

@TerminalAutism @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @tirifto @udon I already wrote multiple articles, and even the most dogmatic ones reading it would still refuse to understand it, and just say that I am wrong, because another institution they're donating told them otherwise.

It's how psyops work; once you're brainwashed deeply enough, it's very hard to undo the brainwashing.
I've been psyopped before, everyone has been psyopped at one point, I know that waking up for the first time is extremely hard, though waking up from other psyops you fell for then becomes way easier.
So you can't blame them, blaming them for being brainwashed will perhaps make them even less likely to wake up.

@ryo @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @tirifto @udon Yeah, I know. I don't say that because it's more effective, just because it reduces redundant effort, which eventually gets really tiring. Like, I do not want to explain the issues with Rust for the 50th time, fuck that. Though I guess you do get better at making points if you make them many times, up to a point.

And the main problem is that people don't really want to see your point. If they did, they would see it. Some people are willing to change their minds and some just aren't. And if you are willing to change your mind, you know that you have been tricked and deceived and fell for psyops, and have been a big idiot, and wrong in pretty much every way.

I have been wrong about pretty much everything at least half a dozen times. I don't even worry about being right at this point. It's not a competition, and part of the point of posting things online is so that people can give you new information, so being wrong is very useful. I just find information and make my points based on the best ideas that I have at the moment, and when I figure out that I may have been wrong about something, I try to remember to point that out, because other people should know.

And I tell people to not assume that I'm right, because I want people to point out when I fuck up and get something wrong, which happens all the time because you can't look into everything in depth and no matter what, a lot of your information is just stuff that you heard and you think it makes sense. The worst thing about being wrong is that I know for a fact that I came out on top in discussions even though I was completely fucking wrong, so debates are pretty damn worthless and I hate them. If someone is trying to win a discussion, it's a bad discussion, basically. I'm very tired of that, I would rather just have one exchange and leave. I hate trying to convince people of shit. It's exhausting and doesn't work, and it's a big waste of time.

@gnusocialjp By the way, systemd is: LGPLv2.1-or-later - you need to make sure to mention the actual license, as "GPL" is meaningless.
@ryo
>I heard that there’s a committee for defining what is considered FOSS and what is not
There's a committee for deciding for what's "open source": https://opensource.org/osd (yes, clownflare and lots of nonfree JavaScript), but they've approved a number of proprietary software licenses.

>To put things simply, OSS (open source) is actually a movement that came in as a corporate response to the business model of WordPress (or something else, whatever), they saw you can make software open source and still make lots of money off of it
"open source" as and movement came from the want to destroy free software and replace it with a special type of proprietary software: http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
Wordpress was initially released in 2003.

>Microshaft came with Visual Studio Code, which even admits it’s OSS and not FOSS.
The "VSCode" binary doesn't even comply with the "open source definition", but the source does.

>Goolag Android (so not Android AOSP), Chromium, and so on
"AOSP" relies on and ships a bunch of proprietary software (look in the webview license list) and only Replicant fixes such.
The licensing of chromium is unclear, so nobody knows if it even qualifies as "open source".

The debian "openSSL" bug was caused by a developer deciding to correct a compile time error and ending up breaking the PRNG.

>all these massive OSS projects by big corporations all include an EULA you have to agree to in order to use the software?
If you need to agree to an EULA, such software doesn't even qualify as "open source".

>FOSS on the other hand stands for free and open source software
Except in a bunch of cases, that can mean; "gratis, source available software".

systemd is free software, but just because it's free software doesn't mean it's good - so I don't use systemd.

>As for FLOSS, it’s basically the same as FOSS
"FLOSS" does a slightly better job at being neutral between free software and "open source".

>because in English if you say “free software”, it might be confused as “pirated software” (which is really just sharing software Robin Hood style)
Such confusion can be rectified by stating: "When I say free software, I'm talking about freedom and not something as shallow as price" and the listener won't make the same mistake.

I don't understand how sharing proprietary software has anything to do with theft, murder etc with the help of a boat and sharing proprietary malware is not something Robin Hood would do.

>And proprietary software is all the software that has an EULA, is or isn’t open source, has a copyright (which is a scam)
All software is copyrighted automatically by the current copyright laws, so if you want it to be free software, you *must* license it.

>I run Artix Linux on my ThinkPads
That's Artix GNU/Linux or Artix/Linux, as the kernel, Linux doesn't run on its own, as saying "Artix Linux" implies that you run a version of Linux.

>I’ll get another ThinkPad to run OpenBSD on
Don't - OpenBSD installs proprietary software without asking the user if it detects that the hardware could use such.

>actually own them, because the GPL license (and also the BSD license for OpenBSD and GhostBSD) says so.
There are 3 versions of the GPL; GPLv1, GPLv1 and GPLv3. The kernel, Linux is under the GPLv2-only and most GNU software is now licensed under GPLv3-or-later.

>SoystemD has also been the reason for Linux users to switch to BSD
There is not one BSD - there are many. I'm not sure of any "Linux users", but I'm aware of GNU/Linux and BusyBox/Linux users.

Only 1 or two of the free distros even use systemd anyway, you should just use one of those instead of selecting one of the proprietary BSD's: https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

@digdeeper >But why should those "freedoms" be taken as axioms if they don't work in practice to bring anything positive?
Please could you enlighten me how a few bad apples like firefox and chromium outweigh the positive result of GNU and a huge amount of other free software?

>if a software has millions of lines of code, it is effectively unmodifiable. So how is it different than a closed source one?
If a program is free software, you can copy individual files, or even just a few lines or data structures etc and use them in separate programs under the free software license.
Even then, good software can have millions of lines of code and still be modifiable.

Please don't support proprietary software by writing about the open/closed state, as open and closed are just two separate states, and saying such implies that either is acceptable.

When it comes to proprietary software, you typically don't have the source, or even if you do, you don't have permission to use that source - so you can't do the above.

>Or if a corporation comes in and just takes over, and the forks never gain traction because they lack the marketing budget?
Simply don't use the software, or use one of the working forks then?
Software doesn't need to be popular for you to use it.
Just because a company has a large marketing budget doesn't mean you have to use their spyware (unless of course such is imposed onto you, but that has not much to do with marketing).

>Or if the developers abuse the users with privacy violations?
Don't use the software - it's that simple.

>Why is theory being considered over what actually happens?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "what actually happens" - there are a number of bad apples, but most of the apples are great.

@TerminalAutism >I don't have to explain to someone why Firefox is not free software for the billionth time
It's available under free software licenses, so it's free software, but just because it's free software doesn't mean it's good or not spyware.
Please don't confuse people by saying things aren't free software, when they are.

>how the FSF's four freedoms are not a complete list of all freedoms you can have in software.
The FSF has never claimed that the 4 freedoms is a complete list of everything you need for software, just how the 4 things need to be met for such to be free software.

>If privacy doesn't matter in free software, then why is 90% of what Richard Stallman talks about in his speeches about privacy? Why did he say that he would not carry a phone EVEN IF it was fully free, because it would still track him?
If you want privacy, the first thing you need is the software to be free, but of course that's only the first thing.
I've listened to a few rms speeches and he doesn't talk about privacy 90% of the time - it's a far smaller percentage, but the fact is, you cannot have privacy with proprietary software, so using free software instead is the first step to privacy.

@Suiseiseki @digdeeper Not worth responding to. You convinced me, I am now against free software. Fuck free software.

@TerminalAutism You were clearly against the ideals of free software in the first place, so I don't understand what "convincing" I did.

It's incredibly rude to reply to me like that, considering that I was being as polite as reasonably possible to you.

@Suiseiseki It's supposed to end the discussion because I'm sick of it and it will never go anywhere because it never does, it's a huge waste of time. If you think that a program that spies on people almost as much as fucking Google Chrome does and is blatantly anti-freedom, is free because of legalistic bullshit, then there's no point in saying anything else.

Free software doesn't have to respect the user's freedom, so it's just open source. It's just free as in money, really, the whole "freedom" thing associated with it means nothing, because "free" programs can assrape the user's freedom as much as proprietary software and still be "free". Pointless to argue against an ideology that believes that free doesn't mean free, and that software can be designed and used to take away human freedom and to be as difficult as possible to replace but still be free.

Even if it's something that can realistically be forked and made free, that does not make the original free. Freedom in software is dying, it has been declining for a while and corporations are taking everything over with intentionally clusterfucked software that is designed to be irreplaceable and to be a dependency for everything, and "free software" people are all for that.

I'm being an idiot, I'm making arguments again when the entire point is that I am frustrated by having to repeat basic shit over and over again. I should not have to make these arguments. At some point it's just us vs them and there can be no debate. It's like trying to make arguments to Microsoft about why what they do is wrong and is going to have disastrous consequences for human freedom. They don't care, they are just the enemy and they do it on purpose. Arguments should be made in front of an audience so that other people can be exposed to them. Debates are a complete waste of time.
replies
0
announces
1
likes
1

hey, hey, you know that's fallacious logic, and many of us in the spectrum don't like that!

I realize you're upset and annoyed about the topic, so I won't bother you, but if I may make a suggestion, please think about what it takes for a user to be in control of the software they use for their computing. you might be surprised

@udon @Suiseiseki @gnusocialjp @ryo The only good Linux distribution and it's dead and broken.

@lxo I don't care about what you like, just block me. The arguments were made, there is nothing else to say. Privacy is a necessary aspect of freedom and without it, you don't have freedom. And if you have to fork software to make it not violate your privacy, then you are forking it to make it free, because it was not. And the harder something is to fork, the less free it is, and corporate software is made specifically for that, regardless of the license that it's under. A shitty FSF article has nothing to do with any of that. The FSF did not invent freedom, they do not decide what it is.

Again, I'm repeating myself. I should not have to make these arguments, it's basic fucking logic and people shouldn't need this to be explained to them in the first place because they should be capable of cognition. It's not even coming from me, other people had the same realizations, independently. God, I hate debates so much. Well, debates are interacting with people, and I hate people, so it shouldn't be surprising. Why am I even here? Actually, now that I think about it, I shouldn't be. That was a mistake, wasn't it?

yes, you are repeating yourself, and without listening.
I'll suggest again that you take some time away from the conversation, and then ponder about what it takes for a user to be in control of a piece of software. I believe that thinking will be enlightening

@TerminalAutism @udon @Suiseiseki @gnusocialjp

> The only good Linux distribution

Artix?

> and it's dead

Damn Small Linux?

> and broken.

Ubuntu?

@TerminalAutism secruity is the antithesis of liberty

@digdeeper in what way does having a large program make it unmodifiable? What one user calls privacy violations another calls usefull features. That's part of Freedom is being able to use that as you see fit, and not allow someone else to make that decision for you.

the FSF did not invent Freedom, that is true, man and/or God invented Freedom. but the GNU Project did invent Free Software. The post was about Free Software, so we should point to what that is when discussing it. Even among fellow members of the FSF there is a vastly different opinon of what Freedom as a whole outside of Free Software is. Every member I have spoken with, however, is in agreement that Free Software is one componetn of how they see freedom. For example: There are some folks who see freedom as getting somone other than themselves to pay for health care expenses, while others see freedom as the ability to opt out of paying for others' health care expenses.

@ryo so you just made up your completley own definition of Free Software that basicially boils down to whether or not you like it?

If you want to come up with a new phrase that is based on simplicity and security, that's fine, but trying to usurp the phrase "Free Software" which is debatable as to how useful that phrase in and of itself is, would likely be a better solution. Perhaps you could work with some other folks who find that more important than the 4 freedoms of Free Software to come up with a better term.

@ryo
>>What you're saying is like saying "whether stabbing people with a knife hurts or not depends on the law, individual subjectivity, and the times".

Actually, yes. I'm not certain about man's law, but certainly the rest does. For example, if somone has an AK-47 and is trying to kill everyone in site, if someone is able to sneak up and stab them, that would generally be considered self-defense which most everyone believes is the the ethical thing to do.

and if by hurt you actually mean is it painful, that also could be based on subjectivity. Some people in some places dont' have pain receptors, some people like being cut. Some people are suicidal and may find being stabbed a form of relief.

@udon yep, you certainly can make a FOSS Virus. I suspect it has been doen many times for various school projects over the years.

Actually, you have it backwards. Just because something is Free Software doesn't mean you like it. .

@fu The point isn't making up definitions, rather to not be as blindly cultish over it just because some institution decides what it means.
Even if the FSF decides that privacy is not part of freedom, in practice freedom doesn't exist if there's no privacy.

Which is why I believe we shouldn't just dogmatically follow definitions even if they make no sense (which is what brought us to the covAIDS scamdemic in the first place, and billions of people still can't let it go to this day), things have to make sense for these definitions to have any validity, which in the case of free software they just don't (or well, they're incomplete).

@fu @gnusocialjp @TerminalAutism @digdeeper @udon Yes, and the point still stands that stabbing someone with a knife hurts, regardless of what a government made up "law" says.
It's not like if you sink a literal knife into somebody else's body, that person will not feel anything.

@fu @AIwhQtQLTGP3NYBvvc.longyap@mk.longyap.name.my @longyap As I already said, it's not about preference, it's about common sense.
Freedom and privacy goes hand in hand, if the one is absent, the other simply can't function.

Based on this conversation, I can safely consider the "free software movement" to be a cult, considering the people just believing whatever is written without any thinking of their own.
Now I see why true anarchists say that ancoms can't think...

@ryo Congratulations, you are real. You have had a thought, therefore you exist. How is that a big deal? Well, it seems to possibly be a one in one million trait. There is no reward for it, though. In fact, you'll be punished for it. It does unlock impossible difficulty, though, and it's mandatory. You do get to see the real ending, though. But it's still a bad ending, there is no good ending, and in fact, what you do doesn't even affect it, and everything you do will fail. The font in the credits is nice, though.

@TerminalAutism Having a whole swarm of zombies against you really makes you strong once you survive them.

@ryo This is not even 1000000% of my power.
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=5HW4s-28RAs