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 14:54]
throgh [But you can rebrand for example programming-languages or other software?] 		en:philosophy:community_software [2024/07/03 15:09] (current)
throgh [But the FSF is listing some of your excluded and removed packages as free?]
Line 43: 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 77: 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 what if a 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? =====