Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive

[MSavoritias]

On 3/18/24 15:12, Simon Tournier wrote:
> Hi MSavoritias,
>
> On lun., 18 mars 2024 at 13:47, MSavoritias <email@msavoritias.me> wrote:
>
>
> > As advice for the future when somebody says a concern or wish they have,
> > your first statement shouldn't be "but its legal" because that
> > completely dismisses any constructive discussion that could be done.
> Again, I am not arguing about “legal” something.  Instead, I am pointing
> that this wish does not match the principles of “free software”.
>
> If you accept that the software you create is “free software” then you
> cannot complain if this “free software” is used in some contexts that
> you consider unethical.
>
> That’s the double sword of “free software”.
>
> Do I consider LLMs as something unethical?  I think yes: most AI appears
> to me unethical but that’s another story (rooting my arguments in
> arguments about energy [2,3,4]).
>
> 2: https://social.sciences.re/@zimoun/112082437445032973
> 3: https://social.sciences.re/@zimoun/112039562095800532
> 4: https://social.sciences.re/@zimoun/112038609631116527
Yes you are. The argument that you can do what you want with Free 
Software is based around a licence which is a legal construct of states.

I think you have misunderstood that here we are talking about the social 
rules of being a decent group of human beings and respect somebody 
else's wishes.

> > What is in question here is whether Software Heritage respects people
> > enough to do the right thing and respect their wishes without getting
> > lawyers/legal involved.
> Again, this is an incorrect frame, IMHO.  Software Heritage (SWH) do the
> things you granted them to do.  SWH respects the “ethical” definition of
> “free software”.

You are bringing the legal argument again. The argument that you can do 
what you want with Free Software is based around a licence which is a 
legal construct of states.

I think you have misunderstood that here we are talking about the social 
rules of being a decent group of human beings and respect somebody 
else's wishes.

In this case somebody asks for something so if SFH is a good member of 
our community they should do that. Otherwise they are not a good member 
of our community.

> > Besides with the way you are framing Free Software as not respecting any
> > social rules then that makes Free Software not attractive which is the
> > opposite of what we are trying to do here :)
> I do not know what are the “social rules” of “free software”.  At best,
> I understand the social rules of a community working on free software.
>
> And this community is far to be an homogeneous whole with clear social
> rules.  These social rules vary and the only shared denominator is the
> “free software” principles defined by four freedoms.

Guix has a CoC that's the common thing we have here. For social things 
that is. Plus some cultural things of course.


MSavoritias