The lack of outrage that the @osi rigging election is quite pathetic .. #FreeSoftware for the win, #OpenSource misses the point. #FLOSS #FOSS #OSI #FSF #GNU
@hipsterelectron Existing legal frameworks work well enough for labour protection, I think? Or do you have something specific on your mind?
@amszmidt continuing to use copyleft as a basis but with stronger movements to protect against misuse directly opposed to e.g. consumption by LLMs or usage in military or surveillance neither of which free software has steadfastly mobilized against
@hipsterelectron That would violate one of the most basic rights of software freedom, the freedom to use a program for any purpose. How do you suggest that would be reconciled?
@amszmidt i consider that basis insufficient and incomplete. i don't have an answer yet.
@hipsterelectron Or rather, how does the current legal system not solve these problems? Surveillance is not a topic that should be handled by licenses, neither is military use but by a a legal framework that all democratic countries already have in place.
@amszmidt i said "mobilized" and not "licensed against" for a reason. a free software movement that uses its revolutionary spirit to achieve other goals is something i want to be a part of. this can be done by actively refusing support to military and surveillance operations, something i understand stallman tends to be quite negative about in his writing but less so in his desire to use his political capital to achieve social goals beyond the maintenance of a distinct technical infrastructure from corporations
@hipsterelectron What "other goals"? I think supporting military and surveillance operations is important to do, and I think that our governments should be using #FreeSoftware for that.
We can just see how depending on US technology is outright harmful to the democratic rule of the whole world.
So why should military and surveillance operations not be able to use free software?
Absolutely not, current labour laws allow the use of literal slavery in the us (it's legal if they're prisoners), it allows not recognizing the subordination relationship between uber and its drivers (thus not giving them all the protections that the "employee" label has). It allows women to be systemically paid less than men because "individual merit" (found to be wrong by actual studies from the entire field of sociology)
In general the law only says what is ok and what is not ok but doesn't do *anything* to go from not ok to ok. It's the actual activism that create change, and a guy pushing for using the law framework against the idea of digital appropriation is exactly that: activism. The conferences, the os and tools, the advocacy, the funding, this is what creates change
@hipsterelectron
@rakoo Sorry, you're just rambling nonsense. Not the whole world is the US.
@amszmidt @rakoo terrible way to respond to someone actively engaging with your premise. the us was very clearly marked as the context, which is better than presuming universality of "existing legal frameworks". one of the strongest arguments against free software as it stands now is the us-centrism of its copyright and general legal stance, necessitating the EUPL over the GPL—the us FSF now denounces the FSFE for daring to question its accountability processes for stallman. incredibly contemptuous remark and this is why people have left free software behind. blocking now
Exactly, I'm talking about situations not just in the US but in every single democracy out there (no, the law doesn't require women to be paid the same as men for the same job, and I'm not even talking about other discriminations)
I'm not saying the law is bad in itself and that change shouldn't happen on this front, I'm saying that change doesn't happen there, it codifies it (in fact law always follows what society wants, possibly with years-long delay) but the "tip of the spear" is in what the activists do.
Let's recognize the Free Software Movement for what it has done, and the limits of what it wants to do: a meritocratic system that wishes for the freedom of everyone to do whatever they want as long as they share how they do it. The analysis of why freedom is missing is geared towards a very specific subset of the population and doesn't apply to all of it. It's lacking a societal angle and thus furthers a direction that doesn't completely solve the problem. If the german government uses free software to surveil its population, it doesn't mean freedom is pushed forward. By positioning itself against a clear view on societal aspects the Free Software movement perpetuates the dominations it tries to fight against, thus rendering itself not operant enough.
@hipsterelectron
@hipsterelectron The US does not have "literal slavery" -- the GNU GPL is a perfectly valid license in the EU, and the EUPL is not needed. I'm not interested in trolls and their arguments.
The FSF has never "denouounced" the FSFE. RMS is a perfectly valid candidate for the role that he serves within any free software organisation, and seeing that he has not done anything egregious in that role there is no reason to "denounce" anyone.
*plonk*