Conversation

Notices

1. 寮 (ryo@social.076.ne.jp)'s status on Monday, 19-Sep-2022 12:05:47 JST 寮
   Free software vs open source, what's the difference and why it matters?
   https://ryocafe.site/blog/foss-vs-oss/
   http://asc7ewkcvat2wsoi5yuwkej5ukyrqqnpnzpj4u34r2jxnoxhnbx6yqad.onion/blog/foss-vs-oss/
   • GNU social JP likes this.
   • GNU social JP (gnusocialjp@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Monday, 19-Sep-2022 14:05:19 JST GNU social JP

     in reply to
     @ryo This is definition of Free Software (What is Free Software? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html).
     
     There are 4 essential (0=run, 1=study, 2=redistribute, 3=modify).
     
     This is definition of OSS (The Open Source Definition https://opensource.org/osd).
     
     OSS has no 0=run freedom.
     
     Free software is social movement for user free. OSS is software development method for performance/quality (by corporation).
     
     I think FOSS is software license type (≒OSS). I think difference of FOSS and OSS term is not important. But difference of Free software and OSS is very important.
     
     I think your request (privacy protection) exceeds over free software.
     
     UNIX phylosophy is not related for free software (UNIX is not free).
     
     systemd (GPL) and firefox (MPL) are free software license (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html).
     
     You can modify systemd/firefox by your self. You are not restricted by using systemd/firefox. And your free is protected.
     
     If you want to priority privacy exceeding free software, you can select and modify existing free software.
     
     I think your opinion (systemd/firefox is not free) is wrong. I am FSF associate member. So I cannot miss your wrong opinion.
   • Dig Deeper (digdeeper@social.076.ne.jp)'s status on Wednesday, 21-Sep-2022 08:28:29 JST Dig Deeper

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     @gnusocialjp @ryo
     
     But why should those "freedoms" be taken as axioms if they don't work in practice to bring anything positive?
     
     For example, if a software has millions of lines of code, it is effectively unmodifiable. So how is it different than a closed source one?
     
     Or if a corporation comes in and just takes over, and the forks never gain traction because they lack the marketing budget?
     
     Or if the developers abuse the users with privacy violations?
     
     Why is theory being considered over what actually happens?
     GNU social JP likes this.
   • Terminal Autism (terminalautism@social.076.ne.jp)'s status on Wednesday, 21-Sep-2022 12:32:09 JST Terminal Autism

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     • Dig Deeper
     @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @ryo It feels almost surreal to see someone else making the same arguments that I make. It would be nice to have more people doing it, so I don't have to explain to someone why Firefox is not free software for the billionth time, and how the FSF's four freedoms are not a complete list of all freedoms you can have in software.
     
     Stupid people have to turn everything into a dogma. It's just four of more than four, and if those were the only ones, the concept of free software would be meaningless, it would basically just be open source, like Chromium and Firefox and all the other bloated open soyce spyware out there.
     
     People have actually told me that free software doesn't have to respect your privacy because privacy is not one of the four freedoms. Absolutely retarded. If privacy doesn't matter in free software, then why is 90% of what Richard Stallman talks about in his speeches about privacy? Why did he say that he would not carry a phone EVEN IF it was fully free, because it would still track him?
     
     It gets so tiring, constantly dealing with dumb motherfuckers.
     GNU social JP likes this.
     GNU social JP repeated this.
   • Udon (udon@social.076.ne.jp)'s status on Wednesday, 21-Sep-2022 12:33:24 JST Udon

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     • Dig Deeper
     @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @ryo
     Following axiom is easier to the brain. You do not need to think. All you need to is to accept what the "good guys" say. You do not need to maintain or update your own "axiom" - just use someone else's.
     
     I think another reason why it happens, is related to what we are taught to do in debates. You look up the most approved or authoritative source, stick to it no matter what happens, and you will win the debate (because the source weigh the most). We don't need to care or question why the source is authoritative because it doesn't make you win the debate.
     GNU social JP likes this.
   • Udon (udon@social.076.ne.jp)'s status on Thursday, 22-Sep-2022 01:27:00 JST Udon

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     • Dig Deeper
     • Terminal Autism
     @TerminalAutism @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @ryo
     I see the confusion point is interpreting FOSS as an axiom (referencing the FSF's 4 rules), or interpreting FOSS by the meaning (FREE and open source, and free as in freedom)
   • Terminal Autism (terminalautism@social.076.ne.jp)'s status on Thursday, 22-Sep-2022 01:27:00 JST Terminal Autism

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     • Udon
     • Dig Deeper
     @udon @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @ryo I don't agree with that. Interpreting it by the meaning is the only correct way to interpret that. These are words in the English language and they have meaning, and if they made up a term, it would probably be an ideology, and I would be against it. Software can't be free software if it's not free, if it does not respect the user's freedom, including the freedom to not be spied on. Anything else is a corruption of language. Saying that free software doesn't have to be free is an inversion of reality.
     GNU social JP likes this.
   • 寮 (ryo@social.076.ne.jp)'s status on Thursday, 22-Sep-2022 08:40:23 JST 寮

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     • Udon
     • Dig Deeper
     • Terminal Autism
     @TerminalAutism @udon @digdeeper @gnusocialjp Made up words have other purposes than just ideological ones, live evading censorship I mean word filters, to describe words for what they really are, and so on.
     For example, some time ago I wanted to criticize the lethal injections on a Japanese BBS, but they would prevent you from posting if you included the word "ワクチン" (vaccine), so I had to change it into "毒チン" (literally: poisoncine) to get around the censorship.
     I chose that word because loli frog already used that word, and I think it's fitting as a description for what it truly is anyway.
     
     As for describing words, for example I usually say "Goolag" instead of "Google", because they will ban you for wrongthink, like how the Soyviets would put you into a gulag for wrongthink.
     Or "scamdemic", because viruses don't exist, and epidemics and pandemics are ALWAYS used as a money making operation and making you ethernally sick (and thus dependent on the hell care soystem), or kill you if you're unfortunate, so it's always the elites scamming you really hard (especially once every decade).
     GNU social JP likes this.
   • Terminal Autism (terminalautism@social.076.ne.jp)'s status on Thursday, 22-Sep-2022 11:30:11 JST Terminal Autism

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     • Udon
     • Dig Deeper
     @ryo @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @udon Of course, new words can be fine, especially in those cases, and some words are used as actual weapons, like the word "vaccine". And all words are made up, so of course it can be fine to make them up, and maybe have to, because I personally am frustrated with the limitations of spoken language, I just can't express myself very well. In fact, I'm going to make up one new powerful word right now, and it will be... niggot.
     GNU social JP likes this.
   • Terminal Autism (terminalautism@social.076.ne.jp)'s status on Thursday, 22-Sep-2022 11:30:14 JST Terminal Autism

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     • Udon
     • Dig Deeper
     @ryo @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @udon Also, I should have mentioned... I assume that Japanese must be considerably more difficult to censor compared to other languages. Especially when it's already a language that has so many words that are written the same way in kana. I'm sure it's harder for machines to censor things that are entirely based on context.
     GNU social JP likes this.
   • 寮 (ryo@social.076.ne.jp)'s status on Thursday, 22-Sep-2022 11:46:32 JST 寮

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     • Udon
     • Dig Deeper
     • Terminal Autism
     @TerminalAutism @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @udon Depends though.
     Like, the most common way of saying "why" is なぜ, which can also be written as ナゼ or 何故 or ﾅｾﾞ or naze and so on.
     If all of them are censored, you can replace it with どうして (doushite), which also adds the benefit of being romanized as "dosite", "dousite", and "doshite".
     Otherwise you can opt for kanji with the same reading (although they mean completely different things), like 名瀬 or 奈眥 (in both cases the words don't actually exist).
     But at some point, even in Japanese you'll run out of ways to write "why", and that's when we need to replace the word with something different altogether.
     
     So in the end, vocabulary censorship is yet another game of Wack-a-Mole.
     GNU social JP likes this.
   • Terminal Autism (terminalautism@social.076.ne.jp)'s status on Thursday, 22-Sep-2022 12:41:51 JST Terminal Autism

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     • Udon
     • Dig Deeper
     @ryo @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @udon Well, the advantage is that it's harder to ban specific things in languages that are more contextual without completely crippling the language to the point that people can't even use it anymore. Like, when a word can mean many different things, they may want to ban it because of one meaning, but not be able to because some of those other meanings may be essential for the language to function. And in a language that has fewer sounds in general, that tends to happen more. Plus there are multiple writing systems, so it's easier to get creative than it is in western languages.
     
     One example that maybe you heard off... I think it may have been the media, but whoever it was, retards were getting super offended because Japanese sportsball players were saying 逃げる, and to their tiny brains that sounds like nigger. Well, what if people start sending にげる to Obama? Are they going to ban saying "to run away/avoid/win without being overtaken/escape/fail to hold an ideal posture"? You can more easily use words that sound similar enough and are too essential to be banned. Silly, example, but I think it makes the point.
     
     There are also no spaces, that's another thing to get creative with. That's another hurdle for software to overcome, being able to tell when one word is ending and another is beginning. I bet you could do things with that too. I think these things definitely make censorship through software much more complicated.
     GNU social JP likes this.
   • 寮 (ryo@social.076.ne.jp)'s status on Thursday, 22-Sep-2022 14:48:38 JST 寮

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     • Udon
     • Dig Deeper
     • Terminal Autism
     @TerminalAutism @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @udon
     
     > One example that maybe you heard off... I think it may have been the media
     
     I didn't hear about that, I don't follow the media, it's all propaganda and advertisement anyway.
     
     > retards were getting super offended because Japanese sportsball players were saying 逃げる, and to their tiny brains that sounds like nigger. Well, what if people start sending にげる to Obama?
     
     The appropriate response would be to double down and say 逃げる even more often.
     "It's not your language, accept the fact that the entire world isn't exactly like Commiefornia."
     GNU social JP likes this.
   • Terminal Autism (terminalautism@social.076.ne.jp)'s status on Thursday, 22-Sep-2022 14:48:45 JST Terminal Autism

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     • Udon
     • Dig Deeper
     @ryo @digdeeper @gnusocialjp @udon I'm not sure how exactly it started. It may have been just retards on Twatter, actually. I saw it on whatever imageboard I used at the time, that and/or a video making fun of the retards. No idea what year it was, but it wasn't that long ago. Maybe 2019 or 2018. Not sure which sportsball it was. Probably povertyball?
     GNU social JP likes this.
   • 寮 (ryo@social.076.ne.jp)'s status on Thursday, 22-Sep-2022 23:51:58 JST 寮

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     • Dig Deeper
     • Terminal Autism
     @TerminalAutism @digdeeper @gnusocialjp No privacy = no freedom.
     And no freedom = no privacy.
     It goes hand in hand.
     Even if there's "harmless" spying, it's still spying, which is still no privacy, which is still no freedom.
   • GNU social JP (gnusocialjp@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Thursday, 22-Sep-2022 23:51:58 JST GNU social JP

     in reply to

     • Udon
     • Dig Deeper
     • Terminal Autism
     TO: @ryo @digdeeper CC: @udon @TerminalAutism
     
     Sorry for late. Surely, I understand RMS supporting privacy.
     
     If software is free (4 rules), we can do that (0=run, 1=study, 2=redistribute, 3=modify).
     
     >For example, if a software has millions of lines of code, it is effectively unmodifiable. So how is it different than a closed source one?
     
     Closed source code has no 1=study free. You and community/company can modify it even big code. This is important difference for free. I modify chromium code (about 5 million of lines in total) by my work.
     
     I think privacy is software feature same as performance, file size, support platform.
     
     What people judge to be harmful and what is harmless about software functions depends on the law, individual subjectivity, and the times.
     
     You might think of Firefox or systemd as spyware, but others might not think of spyware.
     
     Web browsers are software whose main purpose is communication. When software communicates without permission, some people call it spyware, but for software, it only means communication. Whether or not you consider it spyware (harmful) is up to you.
     
     The user is not restricted in any way by spyware for someone else.
     
     In the first place, free software is defined as satisfying 4 rules, so if you add privacy protection to this, it's a different thing.
     
     You should use another name such as Ethical Source | The Ethical Source Working Group Blog.
     
     So firefox/systemd are free software by definition.
   • Tirifto (tirifto@miniwa.moe)'s status on Sunday, 25-Sep-2022 11:28:15 JST Tirifto

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     • Dig Deeper
     • Terminal Autism

     People have actually told me that free software doesn’t have to respect your privacy because privacy is not one of the four freedoms.

     @TerminalAutism @gnusocialjp @digdeeper @ryo It doesn’t, though. Privacy is an issue separate from freedom. They are both important and connected, but that doesn’t make them one and the same.

     GNU social JP likes this.
   • Udon (udon@social.076.ne.jp)'s status on Sunday, 25-Sep-2022 15:01:22 JST Udon

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     • Dig Deeper
     • Terminal Autism
     • Tirifto
     @tirifto @gnusocialjp @TerminalAutism @digdeeper @ryo
     > If a program spies on me, and I am free to make it stop, it respects my freedom (in that regard)
     Yes I agree, like a malware licensed with GPL respects your freedom. Because you can make it malware-less. A closed source malware without free license disrespects your freedom because we are not allowed to make it spy on us, and our freedom is not being respected. Both do nasty things, but the former is FOSS by definition - then what? What are the 4 FOSS laws for? Maybe some just wanted to win a debate on application of the 4 FOSS laws (instead on the meaning of "freedom"). But let's look in a more practical view about freedom.
     
     We can only essentially have freedom when the predictors big bad guys has not chosen us as the next prey. This can only be guaranteed by protecting our privacy, not showing anything unnecessary without consent - not even something they claim as "harmless" (I would never never expect a thief to broadcast "Yay I am going to steal someone's thing!!! Try to catch me ;p !!!") . Similar to the "Nothing to Hide" argument. Privacy is not included inside the 4 FOSS laws, but it is essential for protecting freedom in practice.
     
     And when everyone keep a blind eye on "minor harms", once they have grown enough popularity, they will be enforced as part of our life and essentially we will lose our freedom. A live example is the current web environment (abuse of web "standards" and the abuse of JavaScript and Cloudflare) and the trend of systemd (Hey, systemd is FOSS!). The 4 FOSS laws does not, and probably cannot consider such problems.
     
     Axioms in general have the problem of oversimplifying things. They limit our thinking. They are only fine when applied to simple matters or simply used as a reference, or when used in an academic debate (there's usually no prize winning an online debate, however).
     
     Complexity and readability of source code is another issue on the 4 FOSS laws.
     GNU social JP likes this.
   • Terminal Autism (terminalautism@social.076.ne.jp)'s status on Sunday, 25-Sep-2022 15:01:23 JST Terminal Autism

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     • Dig Deeper
     • Tirifto
     @tirifto @gnusocialjp @digdeeper @ryo You can't have freedom without privacy. When you have privacy, you have freedom in private, by default, or it's not private. When you can't have privacy, you are not free to have privacy so you're not free. Actually, why do I even bother? Why even explain this? If you are at all capable of cognition, just listening to Richard Stallman speak one time should be enough. Not that even he is the arbiter of what the word free means, he's just the one that chose to call his thing free software.
     
     Anyway, since people can't agree on the most basic of logic like "words mean what they mean" and have to poison everything with ideological bullshit nonsense, the term free software is now cancerous and ruined forever and can't be saved. I may abandon it entirely and just say "software that respects your freedom", which is long as fuck but should shut up the retards... probably not.
     
     Coming up with another label should not be necessary when the English language already has the words for that, but again, stupid people have killed the language to the point that words have no meaning, so it's now unusable. Maybe it should just be fuck you software, maybe that's better. God, I hate people so much. I shouldn't even post this, I should just delete it and go back to pretending that other people don't exist.
     
     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!
   • Tirifto (tirifto@miniwa.moe)'s status on Sunday, 25-Sep-2022 15:01:23 JST Tirifto

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     • Dig Deeper
     • Terminal Autism
     > You can't have freedom without privacy.
     
     @TerminalAutism @gnusocialjp @digdeeper @ryo I don’t think privacy is a condition for freedom, at least not in this context. If a program spies on me, and I am free to make it stop, it respects my freedom (in that regard); if I’m not free to make it stop, it disrespects my freedom. Likewise, if a program is _not_ spying on me, and I am free to make it spy on me, it respects my freedom; if I’m not allowed to make it spy on me, my freedom is not being respected.
     
     > When you can't have privacy, you are not free to have privacy so you're not free.
     
     Yes, but that’s a different problem altogether. Not having privacy is very different from not being able to have privacy. It's the difference between not having curtains covering your windows (because you don’t really care if your neighbours can see you at the moment), and not being able or allowed to cover your windows with curtains.
   • 翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 26-Sep-2022 18:30:00 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • GNU social JP
     @gnusocialjp By the way, systemd is: LGPLv2.1-or-later - you need to make sure to mention the actual license, as "GPL" is meaningless.
     @ryo
     >I heard that there’s a committee for defining what is considered FOSS and what is not
     There's a committee for deciding for what's "open source": https://opensource.org/osd (yes, clownflare and lots of nonfree JavaScript), but they've approved a number of proprietary software licenses.
     
     >To put things simply, OSS (open source) is actually a movement that came in as a corporate response to the business model of WordPress (or something else, whatever), they saw you can make software open source and still make lots of money off of it
     "open source" as and movement came from the want to destroy free software and replace it with a special type of proprietary software: http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
     Wordpress was initially released in 2003.
     
     >Microshaft came with Visual Studio Code, which even admits it’s OSS and not FOSS.
     The "VSCode" binary doesn't even comply with the "open source definition", but the source does.
     
     >Goolag Android (so not Android AOSP), Chromium, and so on
     "AOSP" relies on and ships a bunch of proprietary software (look in the webview license list) and only Replicant fixes such.
     The licensing of chromium is unclear, so nobody knows if it even qualifies as "open source".
     
     The debian "openSSL" bug was caused by a developer deciding to correct a compile time error and ending up breaking the PRNG.
     
     >all these massive OSS projects by big corporations all include an EULA you have to agree to in order to use the software?
     If you need to agree to an EULA, such software doesn't even qualify as "open source".
     
     >FOSS on the other hand stands for free and open source software
     Except in a bunch of cases, that can mean; "gratis, source available software".
     
     systemd is free software, but just because it's free software doesn't mean it's good - so I don't use systemd.
     
     >As for FLOSS, it’s basically the same as FOSS
     "FLOSS" does a slightly better job at being neutral between free software and "open source".
     
     >because in English if you say “free software”, it might be confused as “pirated software” (which is really just sharing software Robin Hood style)
     Such confusion can be rectified by stating: "When I say free software, I'm talking about freedom and not something as shallow as price" and the listener won't make the same mistake.
     
     I don't understand how sharing proprietary software has anything to do with theft, murder etc with the help of a boat and sharing proprietary malware is not something Robin Hood would do.
     
     >And proprietary software is all the software that has an EULA, is or isn’t open source, has a copyright (which is a scam)
     All software is copyrighted automatically by the current copyright laws, so if you want it to be free software, you *must* license it.
     
     >I run Artix Linux on my ThinkPads
     That's Artix GNU/Linux or Artix/Linux, as the kernel, Linux doesn't run on its own, as saying "Artix Linux" implies that you run a version of Linux.
     
     >I’ll get another ThinkPad to run OpenBSD on
     Don't - OpenBSD installs proprietary software without asking the user if it detects that the hardware could use such.
     
     >actually own them, because the GPL license (and also the BSD license for OpenBSD and GhostBSD) says so.
     There are 3 versions of the GPL; GPLv1, GPLv1 and GPLv3. The kernel, Linux is under the GPLv2-only and most GNU software is now licensed under GPLv3-or-later.
     
     >SoystemD has also been the reason for Linux users to switch to BSD
     There is not one BSD - there are many. I'm not sure of any "Linux users", but I'm aware of GNU/Linux and BusyBox/Linux users.
     
     Only 1 or two of the free distros even use systemd anyway, you should just use one of those instead of selecting one of the proprietary BSD's: https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
     GNU social JP likes this.