(4?) Things that support the Four Freedoms
by freemedia2018 from LinuxQuestions.org on (#4W70A)
I figured this conversation would come up some day, and the Free Software Force is pushing the topic along. They think we need a revision of the Four Freedoms.
I don't think we need to change that at all, and I strongly feel that it's difficult to amend those without subtracting from them. What I do think is possible is to have a "second tier" of things that were intrinsic to free software before, which we are suffering without these days.
Talking to others, we've come up with different ideas of what these things could be. I am discounting "promises" and "guarantees" because I don't think these are things we can promise or guarantee without weakening the Four Freedoms. They idea of a second tier is that the Four Freedoms have to take priority. But these are things we can do to support them.
I thought of "four advantages" because they are things that give freedom an advantage. Someone thought "advantages" was ok but maybe weak. I thought of "four favours" because they constitute things where we are doing both ourselves and others a favour. Someone suggested "Reinforcers." I already mentioned the idea of support-- so "Four Pillars" seems like it could work.
As to what they should be, I want to take a good while to think about that. At least a few days, but no more than 163 days (half a year.)
Some suggestions that were made:
0: Buildable with reasonable effort.
1. Modular design
2: Cross-platform compatability
3. Smallest possible footprint
Perhaps:
A way to address with a principle, that free software should not generally be used to erode user control. This has to be allowed sometimes, or nothing can be simplified. But there are threats like:
Tivoisation | Appliance-like Distributions | The Cloud
Which take advantage of freely licensed software to reduce control by the user, to make it harder for owners to change software in their devices. Or they use Free software to "simulate or act as a non-free platform"
Healthy scepticism towards such freedom sinks is a virtue. Platforms that are more locked down than traditional GNU/Linux distro, including Android, ought to be re-liberated.
But when it proves impossible, perhaps we should just move on. Not a requirement-- any individual is free to tinker, but the community should never be expected to rely on such garbage.
Then there are designs that attack developers and make it harder for them to liberate the user:
Software being co-opted and changed so that it is less modular, less reliable, things that disrupt stability compatibility (especially POSIX) existing projects and organistions.
Nothing wrong with coming up with ways to enable people to chase fads, provided that the stability and freedom GNU/Linux is known for is a priority.
Deprecating stable frameworks for less stable ones can disrupt a project from the inside.
Upstream can hijack things that loads of downstream developers rely on.
Favouring compatibility on the compatibility/fad scale has to be a virtue for someone, or it will be lost to garbage.
Debian-like quality control policies (welcome in many contexts) tend to be brutally unhelpful to anybody working to maintain compatibility amidst great changes.
Some way to bifurcate quality control policies so that there are some exceptions or mitigations that let people work on compatibility do their job would help. If we could figure out what that looks like, it could be a principle.
We have seen Codes of Conduct, as well as Bigotry, stifle, intimidate and silence contributors.
when Debian makes a major change, anybody working to maintain compatibility is treated more like a troll than a valuable contributor. This is deeply unfair.
If only we had an anti-mob policy, something that lets people escape or evade a mob of people attacking them. Or perhaps that's a stupid idea, and there is a better way to ensure Codes of Conduct don't simply become a Hammer of Nerds.
Rather than leaping to exclude people in the name of "inclusion," we can do far better to resolve issues that were hijacked to kick important people out of Free software.
A Free software federation is one effort to make the movement more resilient against such attacks.
I want a way to deal with corporate dishonesty and corporate bullies, who first lend a hand, then they take what's ours with both hands. Then they say they're the ones who really made it anyway.
We should somehow support the freedom to fork, even while a company tries to glue all our free projects together into a giant corporate-designed mess.
We should somehow be free to participate and regroup, even after mobs kick out people that are loved by the community.
Loosely, these are things that address:
1. Tactics that hurt user freedom (simulated non-free software, or free in license only-- cloud, tivo, reduced choice)
2. Tactics that hurt the ability for developers to make the user more free (project disruption, compatibility attacks, designs that favour corporations over smaller groups)
3. Organisational weaknesses (mob tactics, cancel culture, corporate co-opting)
I suspect if we try to come up with "virtues" or "pillars" that support the 4 freedoms, we will end up with a list with many redundancies.
That's a great place to start. From there, we can figure out what really matters, what will really support freedom.
These pillars won't be perfect. Modularity for example, is only a virtue for so many things. It is vital in some instances, but only within reason. But if we utterly abandon it, if we pull it out from under ourselves, things topple.
So four supporting virtues-- I wonder if we can find those.
I'm looking for suggestions everywhere. This is where LQ can contribute their ideas. You don't have to make a list, one or several suggestions are welcome.
I already realise that any item on this list could interfere with existing freedoms. That's why the Four Freedoms have to be considered a more important rule than these pillars.
I don't think we need to change that at all, and I strongly feel that it's difficult to amend those without subtracting from them. What I do think is possible is to have a "second tier" of things that were intrinsic to free software before, which we are suffering without these days.
Talking to others, we've come up with different ideas of what these things could be. I am discounting "promises" and "guarantees" because I don't think these are things we can promise or guarantee without weakening the Four Freedoms. They idea of a second tier is that the Four Freedoms have to take priority. But these are things we can do to support them.
I thought of "four advantages" because they are things that give freedom an advantage. Someone thought "advantages" was ok but maybe weak. I thought of "four favours" because they constitute things where we are doing both ourselves and others a favour. Someone suggested "Reinforcers." I already mentioned the idea of support-- so "Four Pillars" seems like it could work.
As to what they should be, I want to take a good while to think about that. At least a few days, but no more than 163 days (half a year.)
Some suggestions that were made:
0: Buildable with reasonable effort.
1. Modular design
2: Cross-platform compatability
3. Smallest possible footprint
Perhaps:
A way to address with a principle, that free software should not generally be used to erode user control. This has to be allowed sometimes, or nothing can be simplified. But there are threats like:
Tivoisation | Appliance-like Distributions | The Cloud
Which take advantage of freely licensed software to reduce control by the user, to make it harder for owners to change software in their devices. Or they use Free software to "simulate or act as a non-free platform"
Healthy scepticism towards such freedom sinks is a virtue. Platforms that are more locked down than traditional GNU/Linux distro, including Android, ought to be re-liberated.
But when it proves impossible, perhaps we should just move on. Not a requirement-- any individual is free to tinker, but the community should never be expected to rely on such garbage.
Then there are designs that attack developers and make it harder for them to liberate the user:
Software being co-opted and changed so that it is less modular, less reliable, things that disrupt stability compatibility (especially POSIX) existing projects and organistions.
Nothing wrong with coming up with ways to enable people to chase fads, provided that the stability and freedom GNU/Linux is known for is a priority.
Deprecating stable frameworks for less stable ones can disrupt a project from the inside.
Upstream can hijack things that loads of downstream developers rely on.
Favouring compatibility on the compatibility/fad scale has to be a virtue for someone, or it will be lost to garbage.
Debian-like quality control policies (welcome in many contexts) tend to be brutally unhelpful to anybody working to maintain compatibility amidst great changes.
Some way to bifurcate quality control policies so that there are some exceptions or mitigations that let people work on compatibility do their job would help. If we could figure out what that looks like, it could be a principle.
We have seen Codes of Conduct, as well as Bigotry, stifle, intimidate and silence contributors.
when Debian makes a major change, anybody working to maintain compatibility is treated more like a troll than a valuable contributor. This is deeply unfair.
If only we had an anti-mob policy, something that lets people escape or evade a mob of people attacking them. Or perhaps that's a stupid idea, and there is a better way to ensure Codes of Conduct don't simply become a Hammer of Nerds.
Rather than leaping to exclude people in the name of "inclusion," we can do far better to resolve issues that were hijacked to kick important people out of Free software.
A Free software federation is one effort to make the movement more resilient against such attacks.
I want a way to deal with corporate dishonesty and corporate bullies, who first lend a hand, then they take what's ours with both hands. Then they say they're the ones who really made it anyway.
We should somehow support the freedom to fork, even while a company tries to glue all our free projects together into a giant corporate-designed mess.
We should somehow be free to participate and regroup, even after mobs kick out people that are loved by the community.
Loosely, these are things that address:
1. Tactics that hurt user freedom (simulated non-free software, or free in license only-- cloud, tivo, reduced choice)
2. Tactics that hurt the ability for developers to make the user more free (project disruption, compatibility attacks, designs that favour corporations over smaller groups)
3. Organisational weaknesses (mob tactics, cancel culture, corporate co-opting)
I suspect if we try to come up with "virtues" or "pillars" that support the 4 freedoms, we will end up with a list with many redundancies.
That's a great place to start. From there, we can figure out what really matters, what will really support freedom.
These pillars won't be perfect. Modularity for example, is only a virtue for so many things. It is vital in some instances, but only within reason. But if we utterly abandon it, if we pull it out from under ourselves, things topple.
So four supporting virtues-- I wonder if we can find those.
I'm looking for suggestions everywhere. This is where LQ can contribute their ideas. You don't have to make a list, one or several suggestions are welcome.
I already realise that any item on this list could interfere with existing freedoms. That's why the Four Freedoms have to be considered a more important rule than these pillars.