HyperWiki

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
en:philosophy:community_software [2024/07/03 03:45]
throgh 		en:philosophy:community_software [2025/04/21 04:00] (current)
throgh [Where are the issues with companies and / or corporations?]
Line 3: Line 3:
 On-going in different articles we have mentioned **community-oriented and -driven software**. So within this article we want to give an overview what and how we understand this phrase. On-going in different articles we have mentioned **community-oriented and -driven software**. So within this article we want to give an overview what and how we understand this phrase.
  
-We understand the mentioned phrase and wording to be used for free, libre and permissive licensed software-projects being most time only developed within a community of people, not with any kind of company and / or corporation behind. A trademark included is under these conditions most time used only to protect the project itself and not to misuse it further against interested individuals or groups to prevent modification, build and share the software itself.+We understand the mentioned phrase and wording to be used for free, libre and permissive licensed software-projects being most time only developed within a community of people, not with any kind of company and / or corporation behind. 
 +A trademark included is under these conditions most time used only to protect the project itself and not to misuse it further against interested individuals or groups to prevent modification, build and share the software itself.
  
 ===== Where are the issues with companies and / or corporations? ===== ===== Where are the issues with companies and / or corporations? =====
Line 17: Line 18:
 Per definition any company and / or corporation has no common understanding of ethics and moral, also no understanding to protect the privacy and security for the greater good of all beings. Acting on behalf of laws does not automatically include acting per definition good or morally intact following ethical standards. So Hyperbola concluded as project that the inclusion of projects with a corporate background is not following our definition and understanding of what free, libre software should grant. Per definition any company and / or corporation has no common understanding of ethics and moral, also no understanding to protect the privacy and security for the greater good of all beings. Acting on behalf of laws does not automatically include acting per definition good or morally intact following ethical standards. So Hyperbola concluded as project that the inclusion of projects with a corporate background is not following our definition and understanding of what free, libre software should grant.
  
-Especially trademarks in usage can lead in our perspective to further issues, when it comes to rights granted for free, libre and permissive licensed software. Yes, it is clearly to be seen also that licenses on the one hand and trademarks on the other hand are also to be separated. Nevertheless companies and / or corporations have proven not to be oriented towards some kind of fair usage or friendly tolerance. In fact it is more clear to be seen that free, libre software is in a dangerous position when only adapting definitions instead of redefinition own stances against trendings to use too harsh and strict trademarks. Examples are here [[en:philosophy:java_downfalls|Java]], [[en:philosophy:rust_trademark|Rust]] or [[en:philosophy:php_trademark|PHP]].+Especially trademarks in usage can lead in our perspective to further issues, when it comes to rights granted for free, libre and permissive licensed software. Yes, it is clearly to be seen also that licenses on the one hand and trademarks on the other hand are also to be separated. Nevertheless companies and / or corporations have proven not to be oriented towards some kind of fair usage or friendly tolerance. In fact it is more clear to be seen that free, libre software is in a dangerous position when only adapting definitions instead of redefinition own stances against trendings to use too harsh and strict trademarks. Examples are here [[en:philosophy:java_downfalls|Java]], [[en:philosophy:rust_issues|Rust]] or [[en:philosophy:php_trademark|PHP]].
  
 In fact: Companies and / or corporations only pretend to support as they are only interested to have most flexible support for their products and productions and people being active in their so-called projects are most time cheap workforces. In fact: Companies and / or corporations only pretend to support as they are only interested to have most flexible support for their products and productions and people being active in their so-called projects are most time cheap workforces.
Line 42: Line 43:
 ===== But the FSF is listing some of your excluded and removed packages as free? ===== ===== But the FSF is listing some of your excluded and removed packages as free? =====
  
-Yes, the FSF (Free Software Foundation) has their [[https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page|own listings and directory for free and libre software]]. We do not always follow their reasonings, for example when it comes to [[https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:philosophy:trademarks|trademarks]] or when they ignore non-free licensed data ([[https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:philosophy:nonfunctional_data|non-functional data]]). This does not mean that we redefine freedom or "free and libre software" in general. We just point out that we see issues and therefore do not further bother into reworking packages with trademark-issues or other problematic fields. If you do not see that same way, it is sure your own opinion to do so. But demanding from us to follow only one definition of free and libre software or otherwise accusing us to confuse the people is not working out. A movement should be able to endure a diverse landscape of motivations for user freedom and when a project alike Hyperbola has taken its own way to be clearly more strict this is nothing harmful. Accusations towards the project or individuals within the team is not really helpful, but when you see a point for discussion you can also take the advantage to get in touch with us direct. It is quite more helpful debating issues direct instead of us reading them and nevertheless trying to explain endless.+Yes, the FSF (Free Software Foundation) has their [[https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page|own listings and directory for free and libre software]]. We do not always follow their reasonings, for example when it comes to [[https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:philosophy:trademarks|trademarks]] or when they ignore non-free licensed data ([[https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:philosophy:nonfunctional_data|non-functional data]]). This does not mean that we redefine freedom or "free and libre software" in general. We just point out that we see issues and therefore do not further bother into reworking packages with trademark-issues or other problematic fields. If you do not see that same way, it is sure your own opinion to do so. But demanding from us to follow only one definition of free and libre software or otherwise accusing us to confuse the people is not working out. A movement should be able to endure a diverse landscape of motivations for user freedom and when a project alike Hyperbola has taken its own way to be clearly more strict this is nothing harmful. Accusations towards the project or individuals within the team is not really helpful when based on this point, but when you see a point for discussion you can also take the advantage to get in touch with us direct. It is quite more helpful debating issues direct instead of us reading them and nevertheless trying to explain endless as some people seem just to enter a place to feel annoyed and take the moment to let everyone know. If that is the reasoning of free, libre software, we should think again and just finally work together to make a real new paradigm, instead of being a cheap excuse to follow only egoistic motivations.
  
 ===== But you can rebrand for example programming-languages or other software? ===== ===== But you can rebrand for example programming-languages or other software? =====
Line 48: Line 49:
 Yes, the FSF is listing reasonings for distribution: Yes, the FSF is listing reasonings for distribution:
  
-<code bash>+<code>
 Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your  Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your 
 freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately.
Line 66: Line 67:
 And the quote from the FSF is going also further: And the quote from the FSF is going also further:
  
-<code bash>+<code>
 Rules that “if you make your version available in this way, you must make it available in that way also” Rules that “if you make your version available in this way, you must make it available in that way also”
 can be acceptable too, on the same condition. An example of such an acceptable rule is can be acceptable too, on the same condition. An example of such an acceptable rule is
Line 76: Line 77:
 </code> </code>
  
-Because this means in fact that Hyperbola would need to do several forks from upstream and that amount of work is again to underline impossible for small system-projects. In fact the FSF has written those principles with good intention, but also with ignoring the amount of rising complexity. Exactly that complexity Hyperbola rejects and is not oriented on. What "acceptable" means is not to be defined by the FSF, only by the projects doing so. And to accept "open-source" (as most big projects are going this way) is not working for Hyperbola.+Because this means in fact that Hyperbola would need to do several forks from upstream and that amount of work is again to underline impossible for small system-projects. In fact the FSF has written those principles with good intention, but also with ignoring the amount of rising complexity. Exactly that complexity Hyperbola rejects and is not oriented on. What "acceptable" means is not to be defined by the FSF, only by the projects doing so. And to accept "open-source" (as most big projects are going this way) is not working for Hyperbola. Same way to accept to "ask for permission": This should not be acceptable, when it is on demand as process everytime again. Please remember that we would than need to stay on pair with upstream and rebrand everytime again. In theory all of that sounds like not so much work, but the reality is quite different.
  
-===== But whatif corporation makes a free program, under a free software license for selling free software, would you recognize this as non-free? =====+===== But what if a corporation makes a free program, under a free software license for selling free software, would you recognize this as non-free? =====
  
 No, we do not recognize anything further than the license is telling. But in that case we do not include that software-project. The reasoning is therefore: We are nevertheless talking about possible trademarks, possible restrictions added to the license later on or the license is changed complete. When the software is then elementary dependency for other we have more work than before removing this instead being sure to have a safe way forward with a community-oriented project under a free, libre and permissive licensing. No, we do not recognize anything further than the license is telling. But in that case we do not include that software-project. The reasoning is therefore: We are nevertheless talking about possible trademarks, possible restrictions added to the license later on or the license is changed complete. When the software is then elementary dependency for other we have more work than before removing this instead being sure to have a safe way forward with a community-oriented project under a free, libre and permissive licensing.
  
-We respect the decisions of other systems for sure, but we just ask for respecting also our decision to not include software and not use software therefore.+We respect the decisions of other systems for sure, but we just ask for respecting also our decision to not include software and not use software therefore. It is a decision of the system to include and package software, or leaving this out for a reasoning. We can make a difference between the theoretical license in usage, the practical development and creation of a software-project and the further outcome in the time to come. And no one can assure that copyright-holders, maintainers and others may not change the used license in the future at any given point. If that happens there is always a chance for a fork being done, but in the practical doing this happens not that often and resulting forks bear also the risk to vanish afterwards quite fast with no perspective for the future. So please understand: **We do not redefine anything, we accept and acknowledge the used license, but we just leave that package and software complete out as it is not based on our values and principles.** 
 + 
 +Following our values and principles means the free and libre software is exactly not only made out of the reasoning to earn more money, instead it is done to give back the control to users. So here is the second point of that question answered: We do not and will not accept projects providing individual rights about solidarity and common good. And we do not put the right of the majority above the protection of minorities. Free and libre software is done out of altruistic motivation, not alone out of pragmatism. Giving something back so all people can participate technical emancipation and are in full control of their running system.
  
 ===== Conclusion ===== ===== Conclusion =====