1

Topic: what makes free software free

The last post of 2024 made me think about how difficult is to talk about ethics in the world of software.
Fortunately, we already understand that available source code is necessary but not sufficient. For that, one should be able to play/learn/change/publish.... the code. But also the code should be readable. For example, at the beginning javascript was intended as naturally free. It has to reach our browsers in plain text format. Nowadays, javascript reach our browsers in waves , out of control, massively, thousands of characters written in a single line. I do not know any legal restriction on taking/coping/modifying that shots of code, but even experienced programmers will need hours to understand a single web page (I am talking about the text-format javascript of e.g. a social-net webpage).
Then, the example of systemd, the software is officially free, is part of some Libre distributions. But the feeling is that it is not fully free: i) it restricts the OS (only Linux) ii) restrict the environment (no musl lib) iii) it is huge, hardly modular,  even experience programmers would need hours to make a single proper modification.
So what is the technical definition of a software made with ethics in mind. I would say it is quiet difficult. I have to remember why the GNU project selected UNIX as the model of choice: UNIX was comprehensive even by a small group of developers. There was not huge pieces of software, just UNIX philosophy.  Even if UNIX would not be the best technical choice, it was the most accessible. I can imagine replacing cp, mv, ls or cd one by one on a commercial UNIX and slowly building GNU testing on all single step should be comprehensive.
So, user oriented libre software should have a proper license, but also should be simple, modular and readable - comprehensive. Unfortunately, this is not easy to write down into a license.

2

Re: what makes free software free

Maybe the GNU-project had the selection done right out of the mentioned thoughts, but they failed period with it nevertheless in the current times. Neigher the FSF nor GNU itself have recognized the issues within the keyword complexity and acknowledged systemd, even approved and accepted all the rest coming with. So for example emacs implements per default interfaces for this. Question is: Why not discouring the usage of more complex software? For this emacs is also another good example as it is clearly overengineering. Another example where GNU is failing to work after the original idea: Having software being understandable, doing just one thing and this one thing good enough.

But also there are more questions in the room: People seem no longer to acknowledge the question for what purpose "free, libre software" should be. Is this enabling all beings or at best most beings possible to have access towards information and handling their data? What is the worth of having people doing this goal? How far can altruism go? We need to face the point that there are enough participants just clearly seeing only their personal advantage: Gratis, free made software for them and only their personal preferred way to go. Do those people want to support? Only if they have something from this and clearly only them. So why do projects not receive the support also? Well, complicated and sidewise easy question: Because "egoism" is the normalized definition of "we" and seems to be enough for many people. And the FSF or GNU fails to underline this besides also to underline moral and ethics as a needed point for free software in a whole. There is always the social and political component included, not just the plain license. A license can only define the framing, rest is up to the people and therefore the users.

Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!

Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices: For a life of every being full with peace and kindness, including diversity and freedom. Capitalism is destroying our minds, the planet itself and the universe in the end!

3

Re: what makes free software free

The exclusion of musl is no longer valid. The maintainer of Ad&eacut;lie has ported systemd to musl. Already four years ago, the maintainer of ataraxia had achieved something similar but with lots of patches.