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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
Like, the most common way of saying "why" is なぜ, which can also be written as ナゼ or 何故 or ﾅｾﾞ 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.
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.
> 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."
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.
> I think privacy is software feature same as performance, file size, support platform.
No, software feature is spyware.
Code is private by default.
> 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".
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
>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.
Law is objective and Law is the only truth.
According to the law making spyware and distributing spyware is legal.
Therefore spyware is harmless.
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.
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.
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.
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.
People have actually told me that free software doesn’t have to respect your privacy because privacy is not one of the four freedoms.
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.
@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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
The government: "The sky is red, anyone saying that the sky is blue is a conspiracy theorist."
Normie: "THE SKY IS RED."
Me: "The sky seems blue to me."
Normie: "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 @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.
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.
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.
>I heard that there’s a committee for defining what is considered FOSS and what is not
>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
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.
It's incredibly rude to reply to me like that, considering that I was being as polite as reasonably possible to you.
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.
Hyperbola is very interesting indeed.
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
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?
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
>>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.
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).
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...