everything wrong with free software
"obedience breeds foolishness"
*originally posted:* apr 2021
Mr Alexandre Oliva, you sure have some nerve to claim you are "Against Software Tyranny".
The Free Software movement fights for the abolition of software tyranny.
And, indeed, this is true. But you have no right to claim to speak for the whole movement.
GNU and the FSF have been quiet about the exodus of several cricital GNU projects
to Microsoft GitHub. A platform that has been hostile to free software. Microsoft removed
youtubedl from GitHub; then due to public outcry youtubedl was put back up on GitHub.
For a list of all the capitulations to Microsoft GitHub, the reader can see: https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org/gnu-watch.html.
Then we also have: https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org/fraud-as-in-fraudulent---the-gnu-ass-end-ly.html.
Open Source Software (OSS) is most definitely a "bait and switch scam".
Mr Oliva claims:
Despite our differences, FS and OSS proponents can often collaborate in developing software, especially when it is licensed under strong copyleft licenses.
And while the two sides certainly _can_ colaborate, there is a moral and ethical duty of the free software movement to _refuse_ to collaborate with enemies of freedom.
A lot of GNU software is now free in license only (FILO). Have a look at GCC's steering committee (https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html) and I'd put the question to any reasonable person: do the stacked corporate interests in the current GCC deserve to be trusted with a project so crucial to software and computing freedom?
I put forth to the reader that Mr Oliva is pushing a sinister agenga. A lot of GNU software and even the Linux kernel is effectively FILO. The interfaces are nebulous programming interfaces (NPIs). Standards and simplicity have been thrown to the wind. GNU/Linux has capitulated to the NPI that is IBM systemd.
Not everyone has the ability to write software. It is a moral and ethical duty of people with the ability to write software to ensure that we guarantee the ease of maintenance and adherence to robust, simple, standards in all free software that we write; these core values are _necessary_ for a sustainable movement. However, I do not expect a former Red Hat employee such as Mr Oliva to openly ackowledge such realities; one may even say he has vested interests in the matter.
Authors of free software must also ensure computer operators have the freedom to NOT run software. The IBM stack (systemd, networkmanager, pam, elogind, dbus, etc.) has been shoved down the throat of practically every GNU/Linux operator. Many of these programs are of the OSS plague. Mr Oliva recommends that we try to work with these enemies of freedom.
Let this message be a clear message to all proponents of free software. We must not capitulate to the likes of Mr Oliva and his treacherous calls to work with OSS. We must organise and pursue greater autonomy.
GNU/Linux is no longer a good place to look for freedom. The BSDs offer us with stable alternatives. I encourage everyone interested in computing freedom to take the idea of copyleft and apply it to BSD software. I also encourage every proponent of computing freedom to host their own infrastructure. Gather old machines and repurpose them. Autonomy and education is how we break free from the shackles of corporate influence the FSF and GNU have put us in.