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