4 ms·

> Ask the FSF yourself YOU have asserted that the FSF has "wide-reaching political ambitions", therefore it is upon you to provide evidence for this. > has wi

> Ask the FSF yourself YOU have asserted that the FSF has "wide-reaching political ambitions", therefore it is upon you to provide evidence for this. > has wide-reaching political ambitions I am asking what "political" ambitions does it have, beyond protecting free software. > Don't just take my word for it The thing is, you didn't provide any evidence of the "political ambitions" you speak of and so you're quite right, I don't take you word for it, unless you list at least some of these ambitions.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
Fine, if you must have it spoon fed to you: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/ https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  How is https://www.fsf.org/campaigns https://www.fsf.org/campaigns supposed to prove that the FSF has "far-reaching political ambitions"? It's not really different in function from https://opensource.org/AdvocateCircle https://opensource.org/AdvocateCircle and squarely fails within achieving the goals of free software. The FSF wants free software to be adopted as widely as possible. The OSI supposedly wants open-source to be as widely adopted as possible, doesn't it?
  - MadcapJake 8y ago
    Looking at both links it is completely obvious which is the political of the two. You are really stretching calling the Advocate Circle the same as the various FSF campaigns. Some of the FSF campaigns listed are "surveillance", "upgrade from Windows" and DRM.
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      > Some of the FSF campaigns listed are "surveillance", "upgrade from Windows" and DRM All of these restrict your freedoms, so that someone else is in control of the program and not the user. This is very much what free software stands for. So in reality, you're disagreeing with the principles of free software themselves. > surveillance Directly interferes with you being in control of the program, if it spies on you, violating the principle of free software that the user should be in control of the program and not the other way around. > upgrade from Windows So the Free Software Foundation advocating for the adoption of Free Software. Isn't that what it should be doing? > DRM DRM, by its very definition, restricts the freedom of the user to run the software in any way they wish, thus violating the free software principles. None of these imply a "wide-reaching" political agenda.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago

Fine, if you must have it spoon fed to you: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/ https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/

AsyncAwait 8y ago
How is https://www.fsf.org/campaigns https://www.fsf.org/campaigns supposed to prove that the FSF has "far-reaching political ambitions"? It's not really different in function from https://opensource.org/AdvocateCircle https://opensource.org/AdvocateCircle and squarely fails within achieving the goals of free software. The FSF wants free software to be adopted as widely as possible. The OSI supposedly wants open-source to be as widely adopted as possible, doesn't it?
- MadcapJake 8y ago
  Looking at both links it is completely obvious which is the political of the two. You are really stretching calling the Advocate Circle the same as the various FSF campaigns. Some of the FSF campaigns listed are "surveillance", "upgrade from Windows" and DRM.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > Some of the FSF campaigns listed are "surveillance", "upgrade from Windows" and DRM All of these restrict your freedoms, so that someone else is in control of the program and not the user. This is very much what free software stands for. So in reality, you're disagreeing with the principles of free software themselves. > surveillance Directly interferes with you being in control of the program, if it spies on you, violating the principle of free software that the user should be in control of the program and not the other way around. > upgrade from Windows So the Free Software Foundation advocating for the adoption of Free Software. Isn't that what it should be doing? > DRM DRM, by its very definition, restricts the freedom of the user to run the software in any way they wish, thus violating the free software principles. None of these imply a "wide-reaching" political agenda.