@jadedctrl @aylamz Having the opinion that FOSS isn't political isn't being disruptive. I don't see any mention of being annoying, harassing, or otherwise in the original claim. Saying that we should focus on code is perfectly valid, and fine opinion.

@amszmidt @jadedctrl @aylamz It's also an objectively wrong opinion. #FreeSoftware is so inherently political that it is risible to insist otherwise. Free Software takes the bold stance that all users deserve total and collective freedom over their computing, and that software which does not grant freedom is unethical. The @fsfe actively reaches out to politicians to further ensure and protect software freedom in European law. There is no universe in which this is not a political movement.

But sure, 'focus on the code', lord knows that's the only thing the progenitors of this movement cared about 🙄

@carmenbianca @jadedctrl @aylamz @fsfe It is absolutely not "objectively wrong". People do Free Software for a plethora of reasons, to dismiss them in this fashion is beyond harmful to making sure we all have free software.

@amszmidt @jadedctrl @aylamz No it isn't. Political ignorance harms our political movement. We have a #DigitalCommons to win.

I don't care for people who want to take the politics out of #FreeSoftware. They can take my code and sit on it elsewhere.

@carmenbianca @jadedctrl @aylamz Nobody is saying to take politics out of free software, but projects who wish to concentrate on code are perfectly valid and nothing wrong. No please fuck off from my screen.

For anyone curious about the abruptness here, @carmenbianca@todon.eu is a FSFE bord member. And should know damn well better that Software Freedom is for everyone, and trying to limit it by creating cliques is infact harmful to furthering the movement. It is a beyond harmful practice, one we have been trying to get rid of in the global community.

@amszmidt@mastodon.social @carmenbianca@todon.eu It is indeed quite worrisome that an FSFE board member is actively promoting the idea that free software should not, in fact, be free for everyone to use or contribute to. This is also not the first time I see the FSFE being explicitly against some people being allowed to exist in the free software community...

@tyil I'll let @carmenbianca@todon.eu dig her own hole, "I don't care for people who want to take the politics out of #FreeSoftware. They can take my code and sit on it elsewhere.".

Free Software was literally never about "politics", but about the right to use your own computer, no matter what you think.

@tyil Take for example the GNU project, it is strictly apolitical. The success of the GNU system is only based on the fact that the GNU project cares about one specific goal, making a 100% free software system. That is it, no politics. Other issues are side-topics, or off-topic. Everything @carmenbianca@todon.eu uses on a daily basis comes from that, and she doesn't care about the very foundation of the whole movement ... go figure.

@amszmidt@mastodon.social @carmenbianca@todon.eu I think the vast majority of free software projects are apolitical. Most of the times it exists simply to fix a particular problem for a particular person or group of people. The desire for this fix may be of political nature for the developers or its users, but that does not make the code itself inherently political. I think this is the crux that confuses many people, they consider the code and the people to be one and the same, when they are clearly not.

> "I think the vast majority of free software projects are apolitical."

@tyil I am maybe just rephrasing what was said in the other thread, the world "apolitical" may mean "without politics" but in practice it is just a term used to describe situations where there is no political disagreement with the status quo. The "apolitical" becomes political pretty quickly as soon as an outsider who disagrees with the status quo becomes involved, then the "apolitical" people start accusing the outsider of "bringing politics into their group."

The reality is that politics is always there, we just don't notice it when everyone is in agreement.

@amszmidt @carmenbianca

@ramin_hal9001@emacs.ch @amszmidt@emacs.ch @carmenbianca@emacs.ch

the world "apolitical" may mean "without politics" but in practice it is just a term used to describe situations where there is no political disagreement with the status quo

I strongly disagree. It makes no sense to accept a word has a definition and then immediately say you use a different definition just so you can have an argument.

The code I submit to projects, and code I accept from others, is not political. They don't come with any caveats that I must agree with a certain viewpoint, or that I expect someone to perform certain perfomative actions. I am political, and perhaps I start or contribute to projects because those align with my political viewpoints, but the code and the projects themselves are not political in any way. If you bring politics into my code (through comments, for instance), you're clearly projecting your views in the wrong place. Go start a political party for that stuff, I just want good quality code that fixes a particular problem I'm seeing.

The reality is that politics is always there

If everything is political all the time, the entire notion has 0 value to speak about. Nothing is special by being political anymore in that environment, since everything is, all the time, without exception.

> "It makes no sense to accept a word has a definition and then immediately say"

@tyil I am saying the literal meaning of the word is misleading, and trying to explain why.

> "The code I submit to projects, and code I accept from others, is not political."

Did you receive money for that code you submitted? If it was done for free, why? Is the code your private property? Isn't it a form of socialism to do work for the greater good of the group? An objectivist might argue that what you did was amoral, that you must retain control over your private property and you must charge rent for use of your private property in order to keep the social fabric of society coherent. (I believe this is total bullshit, but I am playing devils advocate.)

So you are simply wrong. Your code submission is absolutely political, but like I said, since you and everyone involved agrees that sharing unconditionally is a moral good, there is no political disagreement. The politics involved in your action could at any time become apparent as soon as someone who doesn't agree in the morality of sharing code becomes involved.

@ramin_hal9001@emacs.ch

Did you receive money for that code you submitted [...] I am playing devils advocate.)

I am unsure what this strawman is about, so I will kindly ignore trying to adress it.

Your code submission is absolutely political

Maybe read a few posts up, I do say that the people can be political, and their reasoning for contributing is likely to have political influences, but you are confusing me, the person, with the code. I am not my code, these are two very separate things. If this is too difficult to understand, I can understand why you're having trouble to understand that a free software project isn't necessarily political.

> "I am unsure what this strawman is about, so I will kindly ignore trying to adress it."

@tyil sorry, I am not accusing you of anything (so this is not a strawman argument). Like I said, I was playing devils advocate in order to make my point.

The point is that you (and I also) agree that sharing code for free without strings attached, rather than treating it as private property and charging rent for it, is a moral good. This is a moral and political point of view inherent in your act of sharing code with no strings attached. So you are wrong when you say this:

> "The code I submit to projects, and code I accept from others, is not political."

Quite the contrary: it is necessarily political to share code.

@ramin_hal9001@emacs.ch Let me ask it this way. I have a project that I regularly work on, Bashtard. What is the political message of this software? What political value am I trying to get from the most recent commit? How am I furthering my political agenda with the subroutine config()?

> "The company I work for doesn't share code for political reasons, they do so for financial reasons."

@tyil no, this is also political. If for financial reasons, then the morality is rooted in the politics of capitalism.

> "How am I furthering my political agenda with the subroutine config()?"

You are exercising your right to share code and to use code shared with you. You are not charging money for it, so your politics and morality clearly agrees with the idea that code for its own sake is an inherent good. That is how it is political.

> "if you argue everything is always political in nature, there's no meaning in raising the point this particular thing is political in nature."

This is not why I argue that everything has politics involved. We can avoid talk of politics when everyone is in agreement, but that does not make a thing apolitical. But when someone disagrees with the status quo (the politics that no one talks about, the politics that everyone else agrees with), then that person who voices their disagreement is often accused of "bringing politics into the discussion."

And this can be very mean spirited, I think. People should be allowed to voice political disagreement without being attacked for "making things political."

@ramin_hal9001@emacs.ch

This is not why I argue that everything has politics involved.

But that is what you're doing in this very thread. You're doing it in this very post, too.

You are not charging money for it

You argue that charging money is political, and not charging money is political. No matter what I chose, it must be political, even though I explained clearly how there are very much non-political reasons to make source code publicly available. In your reasoning, everything is always political, no matter what you do. Therefore, it has 0 meaning to call something political.

People should be allowed to voice political disagreement without being attacked

I agree, but let's not pretend that going into a project's mailing list to voice your political opinion is the right place to do so. I can voice my political disagreements in many other places than a code repository, places which are inherently more appropriate. I can do so right here, on a platform that is actually meant for people to just talk to each other about anything they want to talk about.

A code repository is not a public square, it's a particular place with a very particular goal: To host code to fix a problem. This problem can be political, but more often than not the problem is an annoyance of someone.

Likewise, I don't think anyone should be attacked for wanting their software itself to not be political in nature. Harassing a community because one of the developers disagrees on political points has become the norm, it is exactly what the OP of this thread was calling for. I don't think that's a good thing, and I find it strange that people who openly state they are in favour of many positive inclinations towards community building forget all of those inclinations the moment someone comes along whom they disagree with.

If I accept someone's contribution, I take the code at face value. I don't care whether the contributor is pro-palestine or pro-israel. I don't care whether they want to build a wall. I don't care about those things, because the code is not political, and it does not impose on my political views in any way.

@tyil

> "But that is what you're doing in this very thread."

Yes, exactly. But I am not arguing for the sake of semantics, as you seem to suggest. I am saying accusations of "bringing politics" into an "apolitical" discussion is nonsense.

> "You argue that charging money is political, and not charging money is political. No matter what I chose, it must be political,

Yes, correct again.

> "even though I explained clearly how there are very much non-political reasons to make source code publicly available."

...and I am trying to explain to you how your notion of "non-political" is nonsense, only that there is no political controversy involved in your reasoning, which is only true until it is not.

> "I can voice my political disagreements in many other places than a code repository, places which are inherently more appropriate."

I agree. Just keep in mind there are times when people who have important disagreements feel ignored and might feel the need to talk politics on a code mailing list. Unfortunately, in my experience I often see people trying to voice concerns about codes of conduct, only to be ignored, and then have no choice but to disagree in comment threads, where they are then accused of "bringing politics" into the discussion. Sometimes the politics doesn't belong there, sometimes it does. We can use our best judgement according to the situation.

> "Harassing a community because one of the developers disagrees on political points has become the norm"

I agree, but it is strange that you see this disagreement as "bringing politics into an apolitical forum." My whole point is that there is politics involved if you look for it. For example (maybe not in this particular case you are talking about), but for example, perhaps a problem with the community not having an meaningful forum (one that isn't ignored by the community) to discuss political issues.

@ramin_hal9001@emacs.ch

My whole point is that there is politics involved if you look for it.

Then there is nothing we have left to discuss. There is no value in any kind of argument on this matter, as you will always look to make it political, regardless of the content. As such, your notion that something is political also brings no value to any discussion.

I asked you a couple questions about the politics of one of my projects, at this point I can only come to the conclusion you've ignored this purposefully, as it would be in opposition to your desired beliefs.

@tyil sorry, I edited that comment as a poor choice of words. Please look again.

I meant to say, "there is politics involved if you know how to recognize it.

@ramin_hal9001@emacs.ch I also still see nothing that actually answers it. You only argue on one particular point, and not very strongly if I may be so blunt. The existence of that function on itself is not even argued against, only a context in which it applies, and even then its still on a ridiculously strong assumption on your part, made only to fit your narrative.

> "I asked you a couple questions about the politics of one of my projects"

@tyil if I may, which point did I ignore? I did try to answer the questions you put to me.

@ramin_hal9001@emacs.ch There are 3 questions, only 1 of you seem to acknowledge, and the response to that is completely out of line with what exactly I'm asking. I'm not asking about where the code is, what context the project exists in, what my hidden motive was to write it. I'm asking you about the code itself.

> "What is the political message of this software? What political value am I trying to get from the most recent commit [git.tyil.nl]? How am I furthering my political agenda with the subroutine config()?"

@tyil OK, I thought I answered those questions. I'll try to make myself more clear.

What is the political message of this software? is the same as all other GPL licensed software: that sharing code is a moral act, that sharing code and insisting that others generally benefits the greater good of humanity. (And by the way, I agree, and I commend you for your choice of GPL license over MIT or BSD, I prefer GPL myself.)

What political value am I trying to get from the most recent commit [git.tyil.nl]? The political value you get from sharing that one commit is the same as value you get from every other commit to a GPL licensed software: you increase the amount of GPL licensed software in the world. If the GPL existed but no one used it, it would not have the same utility benefit it has to the people of the world now. But by using it and writing GPL software increases the number of people contributing to the moral collective of free software. It is like an act of protest against the idea of proprietary software and against the amoral rent seeking for code.

How am I furthering my political agenda with the subroutine config()? You further your agenda the same way every other commit to a GPL project does: engaging in the act of writing code and committing it to a GPL licensed program is exercising your political right to share code and to use shared code. And, like I said above, you also increase the amount of GPL code in the world, which furthers the GPL project as an act of protest against rent seeking for code.

And again, I agree with you, I believe what you are doing is good and moral, and I praise you for your work. But it is indeed very, very strange that you think there is nothing political in what you have done here. The GPL can only exist because of the legal system and the political decisions that construct the law around information property and copyright.

@ramin_hal9001@emacs.ch

What is the political message of this software?

Incorrect, there is no political message. You may dream one up to satisfy your desire that everything must always be rooted in politics, but there really isn't one. Its easier to install by having it publicly available, and I get personal satisfaction out of showing people my cool thing.

What political value am I trying to get from the most recent commit [git.tyil.nl]?

You're just repeating yourself here, so for brevity just re-read my previous statement.

How am I furthering my political agenda with the subroutine config()?

I'm not sure why I even bother at this point, really.

Like I said already before, you're ascribing political meaning to vague ideas you assume I must be having, that I must always have some secret political motive to do what I do. But the reality is, I don't. That's all you.

But it is indeed very, very strange that you think there is nothing political in what you have done here.

Its not strange at all. I know what I was doing and why I was doing it. The idea "I wish my political ideology was more prevalent, so I'll just throw some code onto the Internet" was not in my mind. I'm not sure how much I need to repeat this before you start actually reading it and comprehending what it means.

The GPL can only exist because of the legal system and the political decisions that construct the law around information property and copyright.

Yes, but that does not mean that me slapping my default license on some hobby project has any other secret motive than the ones I've been quite clearly telling you about several times now, once which you purposefully ignore to imagine your own story, which frankly, makes no sense.

Unless you're able to put your delusions about my mind aside, I see no merit in trying to discuss anything further with you on this topic. You turn everything into politics because it suits your narrative, even if I tell you explicitly I had no political motives behind my actions. I can only suggest you to stop trying to attach hidden motives to everyone's actions, it will make your world, and the world of those who interact with you, a much nicer place to exist in.

> "Incorrect, there is no political message. You may dream one up to satisfy your desire that everything must always be rooted in politics, but there really isn't one."

> "he idea "I wish my political ideology was more prevalent, so I'll just throw some code onto the Internet" was not in my mind."

@tyil ...and this is the very crux of our disagreement. You say you have no political motivation to the code you produce. And yet you choose to use the GPL. You choose to exercise your political rights to share code and to use it. You chose to enjoy the copyright and information property laws that have been afforded to you by other political activists who have won those rights for you.

You are like a fish in water: you do not know the existence of water, and I am trying to explain to you that water exists. You say "I keep inventing politics where there is none to suit my narrative," I am telling you water exists and you couldn't do what you do without it.

And then when you encounter an air breather (so to speak), someone who disagrees with your politics, suddenly you might think this person is introducing politics into a situation where there was none. My narrative, the reason I bother trying to explain this to you, is that I hope when you see political disagreement expressed in the comment threads on software projects, don't be so quick to accuse a person of "bringing politics into a situation where there was none." Often times the politics did exist but you simply hadn't recognized it.

@ramin_hal9001@emacs.ch

You say you have no political motivation to the code you produce

Correct, because I had no political motivation to do so. You argue that no matter what I did, it must have been political. It doesn't matter what license I chose, or if I didn't choose a license at all. All of it would've been political, because you assign political ideology to every action everyone ever makes. You actively ignore whatever anyone says, just to make up your own narrative. You calling something political or not has 0 value to any discussion, because everything is always political in your mind.

you couldn't do what you do without it.

But I can, and I do. You're the one pretending I have hidden political motives again.

I hope when you see political disagreement expressed in the comment threads on software projects, don't be so quick to accuse a person of "bringing politics into a situation where there was none." Often times the politics did exist but you simply hadn't recognized it.

To you, politics exist everywhere because you go out of your way to make up backstories to introduce them. To the people who just want to write code, there is no politics, and the are being introduced by people like you. You're muddying the waters and taking the joy out of programming for people.

No matter what anyone ever tells you, you ignore them, make up a narrative, and ensure nobody can ever do anything just for fun. In your eyes, everyone is an astronaut because we all live on a planet which exists within space, therefore everyone is always traveling within space. It makes no sense, and it devalues the meaning of anything anyone can ever say. But the biggest nuisance is how you keep telling people that they cannot comprehend their own thoughts, only you can understand what I was thinking when I wrote my code for some reason. You cannot take a step back and hear what other people say, because it would crush your narrative.

Stop trying to make everything political. All you're doing is making sure FOSS development becomes another political warzone, with all its inherent problems and hostilities coming with it.

> "you couldn't do what you do without it."

> "But I can, and I do."

@tyil So now you claim you can write GPL-licensed code even if the GPL license never existed? You really are misunderstanding me very badly, I know you are far too intelligent to make this mistake unless you just do not understand what I am explaining.

> "You're the one pretending I have hidden political motives again."

Another misunderstanding. I have never ONCE accused you of having hidden political motives throughout this discussion. I have not accused you of anything at all (except ignorance, which is not evil). I am simply saying you have political views that you do not realize that you have. Not realizing is very different from hiding your motives or a having hidden agenda, and I can clearly see that you have been completely honest and respectful with me throughout our discussion.

> "you go out of your way to make up backstories"

I have ever not made up any backstories either. Again, you misunderstand, you believe I am accusing you of having a hidden political agenda, I am not accusing you of this. I am only saying you have a political point of view, even if you don't realize or acknowledge that you do.

And so, if you ever meet someone who disagrees with your political point of view, you could end up accusing the other of bringing politics into the discussion, because you do not realize you have a political point of view, but you do, and it only becomes obvious as soon as someone disagrees with it.

I mean this as a compliment to you when I say this: it seems to me that your political views and my political views are fairly similar, especially with regard to free/libre open source software. For example, we both seem to agree that sharing code and ideas is necessarily a benefit to humanity. If you didn't agree with that, you would not have published any code under the GPL or any open source license. I would very much appreciate it if you could at least acknowledge that this is in fact a political point of view.

@ramin_hal9001@emacs.ch

So now you claim you can write GPL-licensed code even if the GPL license never existed

I can definitely write free software without the GPL existing, yes. Don't start moving goalposts, now.

I am simply saying you have political views that you do not realize

I know my motives, and they are not purely political, I've explained this several times. Your attitude in simple ignoring me when convenient doesn't change this, it just makes you a very annoying person to interact with.

I have ever not made up any backstories either.

You've done so consistently, feel free to read back through the thread.

I am only saying you have a political point of view, even if you don't realize or acknowledge that you do.

I realize that I do, I have said so before, but your wild delusion that this must mean I do everything for political reasons is plain stupid. Stop ascribing your ideology onto me to further your desires.

And so, if you ever meet someone who disagrees with your political point of view, you could end up accusing the other of bringing politics into the discussion

I'll accuse people of bringing politics where they don't belong if they do so, yes, which seems to be a hobby of yours of some sort. You spend a lot of effort to bring politics where there aren't any. Again, I suggest you stop doing that.

I would very much appreciate it if you could at least acknowledge that this is in fact a political point of view.

It can be, but it isn't always. It isn't in my project Bashtard, no matter how hard you wish it for it to be so.

Seeing as you just keep on doing what you enjoy most, make everything political even when completely unnecessary, and continuously dream up delusions about my intentions in an effort to have some grand argument which, when taken to its logical conclusion, simply devalues the concept of "political" to nothing, I will repeat that there is no value in talking about this topic with you. Unless you start actually discussing substance rather than delusions that I have told you various times were not in my mind, I wish you goodbye. You are exactly the kind of person that will ruin a good, functioning project by forcing retarded ideas of politics into it for the sake of attention.

> "I can definitely write free software without the GPL existing, yes. Don't start moving goalposts, now."

@tyil OK, this is my last post to you then. But if you think you can write free software without the legal framework of copyright existing, then your ignorance of how the law works, and how free software works, is far too deep for me to be able to teach you anything. No wonder you think I am delusional, you lack even some of the most basic understanding of law required to have this discussion.

@ramin_hal9001@emacs.ch

But if you think you can write free software without the legal framework of copyright existing

I can write code without any law existing for it. I can publish this code and tell people "you are free to do whatever you want with it". While the free software movement was borne out of a need against extremely dumb copyright law, the idea that one can only make free software because there's laws in place, is fucking dumb. Free software, the politics, is certainly a thing due to law, but free software, the software, is just software which people share freely, which the user can use in any way they see fit. Your sad attempt to conflate the two at all costs simply shows your ideology is ingrained into everything you do, and you cannot let anyone exist that doesn't ascribe to your viewpoint. Its sad, and its incredibly annoying that you simply cannot ever let go of your ideology, and you must at all times dream up hidden motives no matter how many times any person tells you that they did not have them.

You think this is about law now for some reason because you're forcing your beliefs into it which make everything political, which again completely devalues the meaning of it. Whenever I take a shit I don't think about the politics of my shit, similarly how I don't think about how I can overthrow the government when I wrote the config subroutine for Bashtard.

Lets take the meaning of the word "political", first definition to be found on DDG:

Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.

My little side projects do not relate, nor deal with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state. You will argue they do because they have a license, but on the other hand, you will also argue they do if they don't have a license, so in the end, the license I chose or do not chose doesn't matter, therefore it is not a useful argument to have. Besides that, the license is not part of the code, but you seem completely unable to get that point, no matter how often and explicitly it is said.

Kindly fuck your retarded ass away from me.

> "Kindly fuck your retarded ass away from me."

@tyil first disrepectful thing you said. I guess I have been delusional — about whether you might have been a reasonable person.

@ramin_hal9001@emacs.ch Imagine being an obnoxious retard for a dozen posts spread over the course of more than a full day, and then get upset when someone finally just calls you what you are.

If you expect reason from the other party, how about starting being reasonable yourself for just a moment.

@tyil You've been nothing but rude and abrasive towards @ramin_hal9001 who has treated with beyond the respect that you deserve. I already called you out once, and you yet continue behave like a dingus.

@amszmidt@mastodon.social @ramin_hal9001@emacs.ch Right, I'm the dingus for telling him my thoughts process on how I went about my project, and him saying "nuh-uh, thats not how you thought, I'm going to tell you what you really thought" is just all good? No thanks, I don't need someone to tell me 10 times in a row how I cannot possibly comprehend my own thougts, and how I must have hidden political motives time and time again when.

He has shown time and time again to be completely unwilling to listen to what I have to say in order to make up some bullshit that makes no sense, just so he can pretend he has some grand insight that nobody else could possibly comprehend.

I've been nice to him for longer than he deserves for the bullshit gaslighting he's been pulling all this time.

@tyil No, you'te the dingus for calling people names, inventing things nobody actually said. And no, you where never nice to @ramin_hal9001, who has far better grasp of the meaning of software freedom than you do. *plonk*

@amszmidt i'll just note that you also have written "fuck off from my screen" in reply to another comment, which also isn't very nice?

(then, the first post already was something with fucking off )
@tyil @ramin_hal9001