6 ms·

Software freedom requires the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. That includes the freedom and right to connect to use it to connect to th

Software freedom requires the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. That includes the freedom and right to connect to use it to connect to the Signal network. Moxie restricts that freedom, violating the spirit of free software. End of story. Your car analogy is irrelevant. Maybe Signal is open source but not free software. That just shows how open source misses the point.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
I don't think that traditional advocates of Free Software (RMS for example) would agree that those running a server must accept connections from just any build (however changed it has become from the originally released sources) of the Free Software client. The freedom of the Signal software consists in anyone being free to fork both client and server sources and run their own server on their own infrastructure.
- anoncake 6y ago
  So?
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    So: most of the people here, when they think about concepts like “software freedom”, look to the major thinkers in this field. You can operate with a different definition if you like, but you can't be surprised when people react as if your views are odd.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      Most people look to authority instead of thinking themselves, you mean.
- 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
  ever heard of api?
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    Yes, of course I have, and so has Moxie. In his classic essay on why Signal will not be federated, he clearly explains why he does not believe that this is a good approach.
2Gkashmiri 6y ago
Yes. Source available but not free software.
aidenn0 6y ago
Software freedom requires the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. That includes the freedom and right to connect to Theo de Raat's private SSH server. Theo de Raat restricts that freedom, violating the spirit of free software. End of story. My car analogy is irrelevant. OpenSSH is open source, but not free software. That just shows how open source misses the point. I can fill in the above template with GNU's CVS servers in the 90s, if you prefer GPL to BSD.
- anoncake 6y ago
  You are not prohibited from connecting to Theo de Raat's private SSH server using OpenSSH. You are prohibited from connecting to Theo de Raat's private SSH server. The client has nothing to with it.
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    But if Theo were to grant me access, but disallow e.g. putty, that would be well within his rights, no?
    - anoncake 6y ago
      No, what software you use is none of his business.
      - aidenn0 6y ago
        What software I use is none of his business right up until it starts affecting computers he owns. This isn't that complicated. If I decide that I don't want people wearing red shirts to enter my house, then that's stupid, but within my rights and does not meaningfully infringe upon your right to wear whatever color shirt you want. I don't see how restrictions on what is allowed to connect to privately run servers can magically cause software to become non-free. Nor do I see any way in which those restrictions existing (again on computers neither you nor I own) in any way violates the spirit of free software or in any way denies you and I the freedoms that free software is supposed to respect.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

I don't think that traditional advocates of Free Software (RMS for example) would agree that those running a server must accept connections from just any build (however changed it has become from the originally released sources) of the Free Software client. The freedom of the Signal software consists in anyone being free to fork both client and server sources and run their own server on their own infrastructure.

anoncake 6y ago
So?
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  So: most of the people here, when they think about concepts like “software freedom”, look to the major thinkers in this field. You can operate with a different definition if you like, but you can't be surprised when people react as if your views are odd.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    Most people look to authority instead of thinking themselves, you mean.
2Gkashmiri 6y ago
ever heard of api?
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  Yes, of course I have, and so has Moxie. In his classic essay on why Signal will not be federated, he clearly explains why he does not believe that this is a good approach.

2Gkashmiri 6y ago

Yes. Source available but not free software.

aidenn0 6y ago

Software freedom requires the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. That includes the freedom and right to connect to Theo de Raat's private SSH server. Theo de Raat restricts that freedom, violating the spirit of free software. End of story. My car analogy is irrelevant. OpenSSH is open source, but not free software. That just shows how open source misses the point. I can fill in the above template with GNU's CVS servers in the 90s, if you prefer GPL to BSD.

anoncake 6y ago
You are not prohibited from connecting to Theo de Raat's private SSH server using OpenSSH. You are prohibited from connecting to Theo de Raat's private SSH server. The client has nothing to with it.
- aidenn0 6y ago
  But if Theo were to grant me access, but disallow e.g. putty, that would be well within his rights, no?
  - anoncake 6y ago
    No, what software you use is none of his business.
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      What software I use is none of his business right up until it starts affecting computers he owns. This isn't that complicated. If I decide that I don't want people wearing red shirts to enter my house, then that's stupid, but within my rights and does not meaningfully infringe upon your right to wear whatever color shirt you want. I don't see how restrictions on what is allowed to connect to privately run servers can magically cause software to become non-free. Nor do I see any way in which those restrictions existing (again on computers neither you nor I own) in any way violates the spirit of free software or in any way denies you and I the freedoms that free software is supposed to respect.