3 ms·

Then what is the point of free software? By existing within the law mechanism it is on itself pointless: it is free labor companies tolerate because it suits th

by tpkee 2y ago

Then what is the point of free software? By existing within the law mechanism it is on itself pointless: it is free labor companies tolerate because it suits their interests and it is for now allowed because we don’t live in a dictatorship, but it is easily hijackable and, as Linus proves, there is not even a need to actually write malicious code. I wonder what would you think projects like signal, but the FOSS community too, should do if the “chat control” law actually passed in Europe. EDIT: if, as you say it doesn’t exist in a legal vacuum, then FOSS is worthless and, I reiterate, just free labor for corporations

Arainach 2y ago
The point is software which is free for anyone to inspect and build upon. That's it. It doesn't have to have geopolitical significance, and geopolitical events don't change the overall benefits.
- tpkee 2y ago
  FOSS is inherently political, it stands for softwares both free, per your definition, and free as in people’s freedom. If now any political entity large enough to pull its weight can hijack an entire project, then FOSS is pointless and the people contributing to these projects are just doing some good ol’ work for free, with no benefits for nobody but corporations. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html
  - bigfatkitten 2y ago
    Not at all, and here's a personal example. I submit patches to projects operated by companies all the time, and I generally don't care who runs the project (whether it's a company or a hobbyist). I do this only because it benefits me directly. It probably helps other people too, but they're not my problem. The company making money is also not my problem. I fix a bug or add a feature, which I was going to do anyway. I get that change merged upstream. I can then happily use my Linux distribution's packages (or some other downstream dependency) without wasting monstrous amounts of time replacing those packages with my own locally maintained version.

by tpkee 2y ago

Arainach 2y ago

The point is software which is free for anyone to inspect and build upon. That's it. It doesn't have to have geopolitical significance, and geopolitical events don't change the overall benefits.

tpkee 2y ago
FOSS is inherently political, it stands for softwares both free, per your definition, and free as in people’s freedom. If now any political entity large enough to pull its weight can hijack an entire project, then FOSS is pointless and the people contributing to these projects are just doing some good ol’ work for free, with no benefits for nobody but corporations. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html
- bigfatkitten 2y ago
  Not at all, and here's a personal example. I submit patches to projects operated by companies all the time, and I generally don't care who runs the project (whether it's a company or a hobbyist). I do this only because it benefits me directly. It probably helps other people too, but they're not my problem. The company making money is also not my problem. I fix a bug or add a feature, which I was going to do anyway. I get that change merged upstream. I can then happily use my Linux distribution's packages (or some other downstream dependency) without wasting monstrous amounts of time replacing those packages with my own locally maintained version.