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.

@bonifartius @thatbrickster @SuperDicq abolishing copyright / IP would do this. some of the FSF 'freedoms' are not freedoms at all but positive rights (i.e., obligations on third parties) that only get enforced via copyright law.

@lain @SuperDicq @thatbrickster
> that only get enforced via copyright law.

i'd say that a license can exist without copyright law as it's a private contract. the way GPL is written it is creating an exemption of copyright, because copyright law exists - it would be useless otherwise :)

if these laws wouldn't exist, you still could either do a license as private contract just for using the software (the ususal EULA) or something like GPL allowing for more freedom.

@bonifartius @SuperDicq @thatbrickster

the difference would be that private contract law only binds the two parties that actually signed the contract. if microsoft makes a contract with that i can not give away their software for free, that won't bind you if i give it to you for free anyway. ms might sue me for damages but you can keep giving away the software for free once its out. same for sources.

@lain @SuperDicq @thatbrickster i'm not a lawer but shouldn't including a term that giving away the software applies the same license be enough?

you get the software. you give it to me for free, without informing me about the license. still, as the license stated distribution _must always_ happen under the same terms the license still applies and i get in trouble, only that i could sue you for the damages the original producer sues me
for, as i received the software under the false assumption it wasn't licensed this way.

i've been spending most my life, living in a lolberts paradise 🎶