@[email protected] @fdroidorg @Tusky @tootapp a sad thing... many people had worked really hard to give us a freedom understanding inside the four principles to contaminate it with those political things

· · Web · 1 · 1 · 0

@astheroth Free software is inherently a political movement. If you removed politics from it, it would cease to exist. The four principles are a political statement.

@tootapp Nah, it's a technical principle. For that reason the definition of freedom on free software given by Stalmann is descriptive -presenting observations about the characteristics of someone or something- and not philosophical. It just quotes the requirements which should be accomplished by software to be considered *libre*. It doesn't imply any axiological matters or deontological things. The four freedoms are just the rules as any rule one could create on the normal set theory.

@tootapp Moreover. What happens if we look a bit? Could one say that the bsd developers make any kind of political manifesto? Nope. Their license have more freedoms -or lesser restrictions- than the gpl. If the FSF would never be a thing, the BSD guys would reach the same freedom on software as we have today. The GPL is a legal weapon to preserve the freedom on the software no more, no less.

If you wish to fight the *alt right* go and vote on your country, or be politician, but for sure, the software is not the called one to change any election or making political campaings by default.

@astheroth There is absolutely nothing technical in those principles. They are 100% political. This is not a bad thing.

Yeah and that political statement is "we are diametrically opposed to authoritarians who want to tell people how to use their property" you're on the wrong side of this one way or another.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!