Notices by チャノロジー、30日@南フ42a (japananon@pawoo.net), page 26

@josemanuel
I've moved on myself, memeing aside. I'm just surprised cases like this haven't come up before, and wondered whether there were any rulings or provisions against arbitrarily infringing usability in FOSS licencing. But as noted, forking and removing is a built-in solution so maybe people already deemed it unnecessary to worry about.

@shit
I'm asking more from a licencing perspective, as an academic point.

Though I suppose I could understand that the requirement to stay open source means anybody can fork out the unpopular elements, so in that sense it would be pointless to add any such neutrality clauses to the license per se...
@why

@why
In that case, would Tusky's decision to effectively block the ability to log in to the Gab domain qualify as a license violation? They appear to be using GPLv3, I would assume that would include similar language to the Firefox example.

I think most of us would agree that a word processor that auto-erased racial slurs typed in, or a PDF reader that scanned text and refused to load a copy of Mein Kampf would be shitty, and we wouldn't use them. But as far as I can tell, they wouldn't technically be outside the license terms as long as the source code was published. Is that correct?

I actually would like to know, just out of curiosity, whether FOSS requires what we would probably think of as "platform neutrality", i.e. not restricting the ability of the end-user to use the software in ways that aren't necessarily outside the scope of the software (using a client to connect to a domain using a protocol) but that the developer finds offensive and wishes to remove (posting naughty words, connecting to """"hate"""" domains).

@louisoft01
Hey, I only screenshotted somebody else's SFM video.

.

@robcolbert hello, and welcome to the thunderdome sir

@Tusky
Your users ought to be concerned that you have such little respect for them that you don't even trust them to manage their own blocks.

@opal
@nepfag
Browser is slow and clunky and shit, at least for me. Probably because this tablet is old and slow and clunky, but I'm more concerned about the abstract principle here.
@tuxcrafting @jeff @p @Tusky @louisoft01

@louisoft01
@p @tuxcrafting @Tusky @nepfag @jeff
I don't know if FOSS necessarily requires things like platform neutrality to be considered "free" or "libre" or whatever, but arbitrarily limiting functionality for the end user based on nothing more than the developer's politics seems like it ought to make the software "unfree" to me.

@louisoft01
@p @tuxcrafting @Tusky @nepfag @jeff
All I wonder is, how difficult is it create and maintain a fork of Tusky that's visually and functionally identical just without this gay instance block bullshit. Because at this point, I just want to do it out of spite.

@wysteria
I'll use a fork that doesn't dictate to me which instances I am or am not allowed to log into. GPL notwithstanding, that design choice makes Tusky fundamentally un-free software as far as I'm concerned.
@dielan @grips

@wysteria
The software can be forked, and that's a saving grace. Somebody will, and I'll be happy to use it once it is. But I feel the act of hard-coding blocks like this is enough of a bad faith decision that it should be called out and condemned when it happens.
@dielan @grips