Conversation

Notices

1. cj 🇺🇸🇨🇭 (cj@mastodon.technology)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Jul-2019 14:46:23 EDT cj 🇺🇸🇨🇭

   #Tusky still does not violate the #FLOSS 0th pillar, yet another explanation:

   https://forum.f-droid.org/t/tusky-is-nonfree/6448/36

   1. cj 🇺🇸🇨🇭 (cj@mastodon.technology)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Jul-2019 14:53:59 EDT cj 🇺🇸🇨🇭

      in reply to

      I find it incredibly surprising that many #FOSS or #FLOSS folk take the 0th pillar's "freedom of use" to mistakenly mean "freedom of usage by creating a software feature" instead of the true intended meaning: "freedom of usage under the license conditions".

      Because that's what RMS has always been about: the software licenses being symmetrical in power between the distributor of software and receiver of software. It creates a level playing field in terms of what "politics" are contained in the software.

      1. cj 🇺🇸🇨🇭 (cj@mastodon.technology)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Jul-2019 14:57:26 EDT cj 🇺🇸🇨🇭

         in reply to

         Because that is the core of Software Freedom/Liberty: the right for a Person to take a software that expresses a [political] view they disagree with, obtain a copy of that software with equal capability as the distributor, modify that [political] view to be more amenable, and then redistribute it without any additional licensing burdens.

         It's never about what specific views or capabilities are in the software itself. Heck, you could fork and purposefully add bugs and it is still no less Freedom respecting.