FSF defining freedoms based on ten-year-old standards.

@thatbrickster@shitposter.world I'm not sure what you mean. The FSF and free software movement ideals are based on the culture around computer science from the 1950s when almost all software being developed was free software. When software was not seen as a commodity (unlike the hardware) but instead mostly treated as an academic work of research under the principles of cooperation.

Back then it was normal even commercial companies, such as IBM, to include the source code of their programs with the hardware purchase, so the user can properly use the machine for their own purpose.

The freedoms and ideals as defined by the FSF are a direct continuation of this. This is not a 10 year old standard, but a almost 70 year old one.

@SuperDicq I was mocking how they are a decade behind everyone else, but okay.

@thatbrickster @SuperDicq everyone else is "billions of flies can't be wrong, eat more shit"

honestly, most of the software i use which ALSO is reliable exists for >20 years now. if FSF keeps _this_ software free and working, i'm happy - most of the modern software isn't salvageable anyway.

@bonifartius Stable software that doesn't need updates making breaking changes is not a problem. That wasn't my point of contention.

I don't like single (1) organisations having a monopoly on the definition of things. I don't think the FSF should be the only ones who can define 'freedom' nor do I think they are above criticism.

@SuperDicq

@thatbrickster @SuperDicq i believe there certainly are enough organizations in this area who try to define "freedom".

only they tend to define it as "free as in free beer" like the whole permissive license crowd. or "freedom until you wrongthink", like FSFE who'd seem to rather have some kind of "ethical license".

FSF and RMS are a clear cut case of exceptionalism because most people (including myself) couldn't come up with something which ONLY protects freedom without additional limitations.