cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/62536902
The ongoing discussions about age-verification and changes in Free and Open-Source Software and GNU Linux and related OSs made me realize a gross misunderstanding on my part. I think many other users may have the same misunderstanding (seeing many comments using the word “traitors”), and it’s important that we become aware of it. We must understand that using or saying “FOSS” or “Linux” does not automatically mean to stand up for human rights like privacy, for the community, against corporations, and similar goals and values.
If we read the comments in those age-verification discussions we can see that many developers and possibly also users make statements like “the developers have no obligation towards the community”, “the law is the law, no matter what the community wants”, “we must comply”, and similar. It’s important to realize that many developers work on FOSS not out of consideration for the community, or for human rights, or against corporations. For them it’s just one kind of software development. We may have projects that are FOSS and pro-corporations or pro-surveillance. The “F” in FOSS stands for freedom to modify and distribute the software by/to anyone in the community. It doesn’t stand for “software that promotes / stands up for general human freedom and human rights". But of course there are also developers that work with FOSS because of such values.
So for anyone who, like me, wants to use and promote software as an assertion of, and a stand for, human rights and against corporations, it’s necessary not to stop at “FOSS” or “Linux” but apply more scrutiny and more careful choices. Probably it’s always been like this, but the present times require extra awareness.
I wish there was an acronym or other word that made this moral aspect of some FOSS development clear. This would help users to recognize software projects that share their values, and also those FOSS developers who do work for those values. Is there such a term already out there?
GNU is for computer users freedom, which is the closest you can find regarding a software license that is “for human rights”, because it gives you a way to avoid corporate/government mingling with your computer by forking a version without malware. It does not provide instant programming skills to realize it so you depend on fellow coders to do the change, but it is the same as the fact that you need to hire lawyers to defend your rights efficiently.
The GPL licenses, as written, forbid developers from forbidding their software to be used for evil.
We need a new model, something like Ethical Software Freedom licenses.
Evil people already don’t respect licenses. Tacking on the term no evil people isn’t going to fix that. It’s already hard enough for most GPL Etc coders to enforce their licenses. Giving of their very limited resources to create the code in the first place, and receiving no resources back from the code in general. The legal process is expensive painful and time-consuming by design.
All this will do is create more Hoops to jump through or ignore at best. And possibly incentivize people not to contribute or use if they feel the work could be yanked up from under them for arbitrary and capricious reasons.
Whoa I just had a great idea to stop gun violence: just write “don’t shoot people” on guns and you’re good
Make sure to always salute the true unsung heroes of gun safety, those brave “weapon free zone” signs holding the line and protecting every school child’s safety 24/7/365!
*falcon noises dubbed over footage of a bald eagle*
If just more schools had that sign, we wouldn’t have so many school shootings…
Sure, evil people already don’t respect licenses, but also ATM we don’t even have a legal framework to take the fight to them. With an Ethical Use of Software license, we would (getting us the actual power to use that legal framework is left an exercise to the political reader).
The thing is the law is often not about Justice. And I don’t think either of us are lawyers. But I don’t think you quite understand the difficulty legally of what you’re proposing. And how I mentioned elsewhere that it is much more likely to hurt the people you would rather see helped than the people you want it to. We just have to sort of do our thing for the most part and help those we want to help. And just worry after the fact about those that have wronged us and need to be punished.
Open source as we know it wouldn’t really exist with that sort of specificity and pettiness in exclusion. Overall I think the fact that we have it even if people we would rather not have, do as well. Is the better than not.
Awful idea, if that worked we would have done it from the start.
Libre software is for taking back our computers, not controlling what others do with theirs.
This is a good point and important philosophy.
None of us want to be taken advantage of or used. But we shouldn’t let that stop us from mutual aid and building community. Whether it’s in the physical space or code space. People are always going to take advantage at some point. There isn’t anything effective you can do to preemptively stop it. Attempts to are much more likely to hinder or hurt the very people you want to help more. Time is better spent pursuing the abusers rather than trying to guard against them.
And that’s why such a license would be for. For when we manage to organize and revolt into a better world, that we actually can use the power to pursue infringers. Call it prep work, if you would.
Nowadays I always try using esotheric political licenses, like the Cooperative Software License (based on the Peer Production License) or similar. I became a hater of the Free in FOSS after learning how the FSF and OSI define it.
I think that you may enjoy learning about free software. It is the F in FOSS. Free software means that the users have the freedom to run, edit, contribute to, and share the software. The FSF version of free software is more based on liberty instead of the open source version which is more based on efficiency and commercial use. The FSF is ahead of the curve when it comes to respecting users of software. Some links to help differentiate free software from open source software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html We will always be having these types of conversations while we subscribe to the open source view. Another link: https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/09/insights-practices-moving-away-from-open-source-trends-in-licensing Thanks to the software being on the GPL, any software that is GPL including Linux will be able to be remodified by downstream contributors to remove the area age verification requirement. Keep in mind that large distribution maintainers have a large target painted on their back and they might not be able to legally have the resources to contend with their operating system being used without age verification. I understand the urge to feel frustrated at free software and open source software but keep in mind that proprietary software already has these types of controls built in. We have to make sure that we compare open source software to its alternative, not to perfection, the alternative being proprietary software. Microsoft does not care at all and already has age verification built into all their stuff. This is going to be a long slow slide into totalitarian fascism and resistance might not look as rigid as we would all like, but I am certain that everyone is doing what they can within their power. There will always be hackers and people who want freedom for the people who use software or any other product. No one wants to be owned by those that own the means of production, period.
Licenses can’t be used to stop people from doing evil, especially not the current evil people we have running the show now. This is an insanely liberal solution which is flawed in that it expects people to follow rules which they don’t want to and aren’t going to follow.
If the age verification implements required age verification via a closed system as required by Brazil, it is no longer FOSS, so they are at least slippery sloping towards treachery.
Do you have a source for that? I recently talked to a Brazilian Fediverse server operator about this and she didn’t mention anything like that at all.
This is a random summary article but you can find a million sources just by searching https://ibcomputing.com/age-verification/
age verification via a closed system as required by Brazil
I mean this part specifically.
The Brazilian I talked to basically said this is still entirely undefined and thus the law while technically in effect isn’t enforceable right now, and she didn’t expect this to change soon and apparently even the government doesn’t expect this to happen before the end of the year.
My understanding is the age verification will be state IDs managed via tokens from private providers, but yes, it has not yet fully gone into effect YET. California doesn’t hit until 2027 either.
You mean GNU+Linux. GNU does not make Linux.
GNU/Linux
