Re: Next Steps For the Software Heritage Problem

[MSavoritias]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:46:08 +0200
Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz@elenq.tech> wrote:

> On 2024-06-19 12:25, raingloom@riseup.net wrote:
> > On 2024-06-19 11:54, Efraim Flashner wrote:  
> >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:13:38PM +0300, MSavoritias wrote:
> >> ...
> >> One of our packages, dbxfs, left Github a while ago and continued
> >> development on a different forge. They adjusted their README to
> >> disallow hosting of their code on Github. Based on this
> >> restriction we have labeled later versions of the software as
> >> non-free and have not updated the package. IMO saying that source
> >> code cannot be uploaded to SWH would fall into the same category.  
> > 
> > No wonder more and more people are growing dissatisfied with the
> > free software movement.
> >   
> 
Hey Ekaitz,

Please remember two things in the context of all of this:
1. Guix is not a software entity but it is made of people that want a
safer, collaborative space to create things. These things may be code,
a blog post or anything else as part of guix. Even a social network
account. I am saying this because you only talked about Free Software
in your message and not about people or different contexts.
And we are talking about people here. Not code. Code is not alive.

2. You seem to imply that Free Software or code is apolitical. (in the
sense of social or state politics not) Which it is not. Nothing is.
For example Free Software is explicitly pro-capitalist and
pro-Google/big companies. I am not saying I disagree, but its good
to keep in mind that politics exist and do exist always. And in the case

> There are many valid reasons why someone might criticize the Free 
> Software movement and people behind it, but making free software only 
> has 4 simple rules. If you don't comply with them you are not free 
> software anymore. It's as simple as that, and that simple it should
> be.
> 
> Free Software gives me the FREEDOM to print the code, make a roll
> with it and shove it up my ass if I want to (and even distribute my
> modified copies for other people to do so). The same freedom I have
> to upload it to github. If you prevent me from doing one or the other
> you are restricting my freedom and that's defeating the purpose of
> free software and we cannot consider your code free software anymore.
> The line is clear, and trying to pretend to be free software while
> restricting people's freedoms (regardless of what they are) is absurd.

This is missing the context that GPL does indeed restrict people's
freedom to license code as the see fit. Because it was written to
further the political goals of FSF. It is on purpose. So we are already
restricting the freedom of people to do what they want on purpose.

And lets not forget 
"your freedom ends where the other persons freedom begins"
and consent of course in the issue at hand.

> 
> The Free Software movement can be labeled (and is often labeled) as a 
> political movement but I'd say it's more of an ethical movement. It's
> a way to share *values* and the value we share here is freedom. We
> might or might not share other values, politics, religion or
> anything, but as long as we put the freedom in the first place we
> should agree that free software is better than any other software
> model we have.
> 
> There are bad actors in the world (say thieves, killers or... GitHub
> and AI), and we can discuss about how we should deal with them but I
> don't think the answer is putting our *values* aside but embrace them
> harder (one value, freedom, in our case).

Definetily agree. The solution is not to embrace propietary software or
restrict software. Its to write down some common social rules that are
rooted in consent.

> If people is not happy with the Free Software movement because it
> puts the freedom first, I can only understand it as people being mad
> about Free Software because it's about software.
> 
> For other values, we can start other initiatives I may or may not
> agree more with, but if the value is freedom (in software), I don't
> think there's any better way to push for it. But trying to disguise
> other things inside of the Free Software is kind of dishonest.

Fair. I mean we already have CoC and channel descriptions. Idk if we
have event guidelines/CoC yet but we should.

> I don't know, maybe I'm just a little bit tired.

No worries. I think it was very well said.

MSavoritias