3 ms·

I assume they're okay with the software on the copyright office's servers being proprietary and closed-source, as well as the software in the word processors an

I assume they're okay with the software on the copyright office's servers being proprietary and closed-source, as well as the software in the word processors and email servers and clients they'll use to banter the topic back and forth internally, right? It's just the fact that they can't HTTP POST their message to a server using open protocols that sticks in their craw? I'm curious where they draw the line at coming to terms with the mechanical necessities of interacting with the government to represent their constituency's interests.

mbrock 10y ago
I'm not deeply familiar with the exact philosophy of the FSF, but I would guess: (1) software freedom is mostly about protecting the rights of you as a user of software, and if the government uses proprietary software on their own end to make decisions based on secret rules or whatever then that's basically their business; but on the other hand (2) there are strong arguments for making the decision making technology of government into free software since government is for and by the people who should have the right to understand the technology that governs them. So, in a way they do just want to be able to keep their own computers free from proprietary/secret binary blobs; on the other hand, advocating for government transparency goes hand in hand with advocating for software freedom (thus FSF and EFF are allies).
umanwizard 10y ago
> I assume they're okay with the software on the copyright office's servers being proprietary and closed-source, as well as the software in the word processors and email servers and clients they'll use to banter the topic back and forth internally, right? Why do you assume that? I don't think the FSF is okay with closed-source software existing at all