How do different practices in software lead to different models of society? Software is intangible, but its results often are not. The decisions we make about what type of software we use have real-life effects. There is a type of software that benefits the common good, and that is Free Software., The transparency and adaptability of Free Software enhance cooperation, inclusivity, and self-determination. This leads us to a society with stronger democratic procedures and community spirit., If you want to dive deeper into this, the script of the video is based on a talk at FOSDEM 2020 given by Matthias Kirschner, President of the FSFE. It reflects the core values of software freedom and pleads for more respect and diversity in Free Software communities.
You must log in or register to comment.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word “Linux” in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
- 0 users online
- 5 users / day
- 20 users / week
- 27 users / month
- 16 users / 6 months
- 20 subscribers
- 684 Posts
- 1.7K Comments
- Modlog
ironically to me the fsf doesn’t even offer truly “free” software which would be software in the public domain
it would take probably getting rid of “intellectual property” altogether to get to that point tho, I’m aware of issues that exist with the current “public domain”, although I wish people and the FSF would recognize this alternative vision of what some people think free software is or at least be aware of it when describing their vision
First of all this video is by the FSF-Europe, a only loosely affiliated lobbying organization that mainly targets EU governments with their idea of “public money - public code”.
Second, the FSF does recognize permissive licenses just fine, but why should they become yet another me-too organization promoting those? There are plenty of such organizations in the open-source space already.
The public domain is only as public as you allow it to remain. Looser licenses like MIT/Apache enable privatization over time of public knowledge. The copyleft is much closer to a socialist/anarchist abolition of property: goods are collective and can be used for any personal purpose, as long as the communal properties are ensured.
I’m sold more in the public domain direction
“The public domain is only as public as you allow it to remain”
Well I don’t find copyleft to be fully public, as it forces people to use the license and worry about abiding by its terms and about using compatible licenses and all of those kind of issues
“The copyleft is much closer to a socialist/anarchist abolition of property”
It’s not though in my view, it’s basically enforced by government and closes off commercial use sometimes and forces people to go along with whatever the rules are with the license; it’s like an authoritarian socialism, and definitely not anarchist as that would allow you to do whatever you want with the code (public domain would be anarchist, to me)
So the forced socialism isn’t really anarchist I guess is what I mainly don’t like, it probably requires just getting rid of intellectual property / IP altogether though to have actual / complete software freedom
I’m not aware of a single instance of government enforcement of copyleft (although there’s been threats of legal actions), and copyleft certainly does not prevent commercial use at all.
The only rule of the license is “don’t change the license”, i.e. let everyone enjoy the same rights you did. If you find that authoritarian, i don’t know what to say.
I agree in principle (if we abolish all other property with it :)) but as an isolated measure it would not be efficient. Hardware manufacturers would still write crappy Windows drivers instead of releasing their hardware data sheets unless they’re compelled by law, and what good does it do us to share compiled binaries if we can’t access the source code? In fact, the situation may even be worse because without the threat of copyleft enforcement shady corporations may in fact just keep violating copyleft.
It all depends on the specifics, but removing intellectual property without abolishing capitalism is in my view insignificant.