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:wording_phrases [2024/09/23 18:22]
throgh [Not distributing and including clear defined packages is not censorship] 		en:philosophy:wording_phrases [2025/05/13 11:56] (current)
throgh [There are no such description alike "somewhat free" or "mostly free"]
Line 3: Line 3:
 There are many words and phrases like "freedom" used around free, libre software and culture. But within their exact meaning many of them stay vague and not clear defined. For example the word "freedom" is referenced on multiple ways, each of in different relations: The freedom of speech, the freedom of expression and others. Within this article we want to give an overview and clear meaning for the wording and phrases used around Hyperbola as project, also in relation what is important for Hyperbola and in what kind of relation this follows up. There are many words and phrases like "freedom" used around free, libre software and culture. But within their exact meaning many of them stay vague and not clear defined. For example the word "freedom" is referenced on multiple ways, each of in different relations: The freedom of speech, the freedom of expression and others. Within this article we want to give an overview and clear meaning for the wording and phrases used around Hyperbola as project, also in relation what is important for Hyperbola and in what kind of relation this follows up.
  
-===== Freedom as vague term =====+===== "Freedom" as vague term =====
  
 The wording "freedom" is most time referenced in social and technical ways. Generic said Hyperbola is always following the **four freedoms** defined: The wording "freedom" is most time referenced in social and technical ways. Generic said Hyperbola is always following the **four freedoms** defined:
Line 45: Line 45:
  
 The wording "open-source" is just a failed try to combine projects using partwise even vague licensing with rulesets of capitalism and so-called "free market" - free from any further regulation especially. Not helping any altruistic motivation or technical emancipation in general so people can't be empowered with this approach in any way. The wording "open-source" is just a failed try to combine projects using partwise even vague licensing with rulesets of capitalism and so-called "free market" - free from any further regulation especially. Not helping any altruistic motivation or technical emancipation in general so people can't be empowered with this approach in any way.
 +
 +===== "Free speech" as vague term =====
 +
 +An often repeated fallacy is the term "free speech" as common association for the will to state and do anything possible. This includes then in this perspective also to:
 +
 +  * insult others without any need
 +  * use strong language with or without any reasoning and need
 +  * spread lies and mark them as a "personal stated truth"
 +  * disregard and ignore scientific facts and researches at will
 +  * harm and harass others out of whatever motivation
 +  * conclude that democratic decisions are not useful and favor dictatorship / authoritarian systems or miscall clear defined words like "censorship" 
 +
 +Generic said: "Free speech" as term does not fit always the needed details and is foremost used to accuse and blame others they would restrict "free speech". As we include this paragraph here this accusation also reached out towards Hyperbola stating that we would restrict the "free speech" with moderation and that our perspective would be toxic. That could not be any more far away from the reality as **one's own freedom ends where the freedom of others begins**. This includes that we need to respect surely feelings, thoughts but also facts. Insulting others out of whatever kind of reasoning does not work. Spreading false claims about minorities, lies and false names is also not working. That is the reasoning for moderation: To stop heated discussions, to stop clear false accusations. Especially when this is about hatred and harassment. **Hyperbola is therefore oriented on free speech for every being but with respect and responsibility, not on free speech at any costs for individual / group terms.** This is the **freedom of expression** Hyperbola is using and defending, not the free speech without any responsibility. But this does not make Hyperbola acting against "free speech" (or better using the wrong accusation "anti-free-speech"), in fact it is just this point: Hyperbola is defining boundaries and set clear red lines for a good work together. If people like to misunderstand or misuse this, we are not able to help on that matters as everyone is also in that point free not to participate. As long as elementary borders (defined in this paragraph) are not crossed we are happy to support people again and welcome them. We do not see any need to harass, harm and insult others. When projects are there making issues or fallacies, those can be clearly named without any reasoning to use strong language and wrong terms. "Free speech" without any responsibility for the aftereffects has no place at Hyperbola!
  
 ===== Responsibility and trust have a meaning ===== ===== Responsibility and trust have a meaning =====
Line 80: Line 93:
 Also very often the included dangers are not seen as "conspiracy theories" are partwise capable to enlarge clear threats to democratic values when people no longer attend in reasonable debates based on clear facts. Yes, we acknowledge that we are living with complexity. But the answer can't be that we call "conspiracy theories" a helpful toolset for critical thinking. As said: Critical thinking is a result of steady and successive approximation to verify or falsify theories. As Hyperbola is also not meant as ground for "conspiracy theories" we always ask back for exactly falsification or verification of thoughts and theories we include, same as for our packages and therefore included software-projects. But we do not support "conspiracy theories" for being defined as critical thinking as this will never fit. Also very often the included dangers are not seen as "conspiracy theories" are partwise capable to enlarge clear threats to democratic values when people no longer attend in reasonable debates based on clear facts. Yes, we acknowledge that we are living with complexity. But the answer can't be that we call "conspiracy theories" a helpful toolset for critical thinking. As said: Critical thinking is a result of steady and successive approximation to verify or falsify theories. As Hyperbola is also not meant as ground for "conspiracy theories" we always ask back for exactly falsification or verification of thoughts and theories we include, same as for our packages and therefore included software-projects. But we do not support "conspiracy theories" for being defined as critical thinking as this will never fit.
  
-Sure thing, we will never ask for and judge personal beliefs as long as they do not harm others. Nevertheless when we are confronted with beliefs based on "conspiracy theories" harming others or including the decision to endanger others, we will always and immediately act on behalf of our [[en:project:social_contract|social contract]].+Sure thing, we will never ask for and judge personal beliefs as long as they do not harm others. Nevertheless when we are confronted with beliefs based on "conspiracy theories" harming others or including the decision to endanger others, we will always and immediately act on behalf of our [[en:project:social_contract|social contract]]. In the conclusion of this section: We see conspiracy theories in no way helpful to enhance critical thinking, especially not when it comes to a very dangerous development for individuals narrowing their perspective into echo-chambers without a chance to escape at a given point because people are then so much under the impression of being persecuted that they reject anything else. Also to add that we surely never do or did label a thought we might dislike as "conspiracy theory", which in fact is as argument also not working. For this we would have needed before an argumentation to debate the thought and the approvals it is based on. Accusing Hyperbola as project and / or members without any approve is a common fallacy and assumption meant as propaganda technique to disregard Hyperbola as project or individuals as part of it. Please remember: **Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has also the power to make you commit injustices.**
  
 ===== Not distributing and including clear defined packages is not censorship ===== ===== Not distributing and including clear defined packages is not censorship =====
  
-As project based on clear, strict guidelines we are also often confronted with false claims. For example the one already stated for naming this section: The word "censorship" is clearly not a fitting description when Hyperbola as system-distribution and also further free, libre operating-system is concluding not to build, offer and maintain some clear defined software-projects. We have named several clear and fact-based points why we decline software in many cases and naming this "censorship" is not only failing to describe that mechanism. It is also a harsh and also in no way working attack towards Hyperbola itself.+As project based on clear, strict guidelines we are also often confronted with false claims. For example the one already stated for naming this section: The word "censorship" is clearly not a fitting description when Hyperbola as system-distribution and also further free, libre operating-system is concluding not to build, offer and maintain some clear defined software-projects. We have named several clear and fact-based points why we decline software in many cases and naming this "censorship" is not only failing to describe that mechanism. It is also a harsh and also in no way working attack towards Hyperbola itself and also in no way even fit real "censorship". 
 + 
 +This also harm people being confronted and endangered through real "censorship" as by clear description "censorship" is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information. Not adding a concrete package is in that definition not even nearing this description and acting. In fact we invite people to be also contributors and build their own packages and ports, further also sharing their build-files for the community. So "censorship" (following the known clear definition) is clearly something Hyperbola rejects. 
 + 
 +===== No packages were copied and later on removed ===== 
 + 
 +Even though Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre and also HyperbolaBSD using pacman as central package-manager does not mean any package was just copied from elsewhere or taken from Arch GNU/Linux. We do not use binary packages as we build them on our own and also have our own repositories fully independent. Please understand that Hyperbola has its own build-servers, own routines therefore building and creating packaging-scripts. We surely reuse scripts, but we do not use packages from elsewhere. 
 + 
 +===== Exclusion of packages and software is not per definition "black and white" ===== 
 + 
 +Hyperbola is following the point to reduce complexity out of a clear and straight perspective: Within a system using on-going growth of dependencies and therefore software-parts and code to execute it gets more and more absolute complicated also to analyze the behaviour of the own local installed operating-system, to understand a process or several processes being connected to each other or also to solve possible errors or failures. Therefore Hyperbola as project is declining complex software and technologies in need to more and more outgrowing dependencies. It is our concrete understanding that users can be also developers of their own system or even further for others. But this is only possible when they can understand the system and therefore the software running. Every project has a profile for its goals to reach and what it accepts or rejects. It is the same with Hyperbola: To accuse us having a too harsh "black and white" drawn perspective is like demanding from us leaving our project-definition behind. 
 + 
 +===== "Bloatware" is a vague term ===== 
 + 
 +Most time we do not use the term "bloatware" or "bloated" itself as both are not precise enough to define what is meant. What kind of "bloat"? There are several approaches for measurement in those cases. So in fact we mean here pure complexity: Software getting more and more complex within used dependencies, libraries and frameworks included to be compiled and also running. So we conclude within the build- and run-time behaviour of a software-project itself. We prefer minimalism, including also the used code itself. So we prefer also not vague terms and straight, direct description of a problem. 
 + 
 +We also do not want to create wrong perceptions in all: Marking something as "bloated" does not fit the description we are here using. Seeing just "light weight" or "heavy weight" ignores just more needed categories we need to describe situations accurate. Please let us be careful with sending labels too fast, as said we clearly mean the complexity in regards users get into, understand and control their installed system-environment. 
 +===== False balancing between individual and generic freedom ===== 
 + 
 +There is a difference between the "personal" and the "generic" freedom. Often miscalled nowadays as people only see their own spaces and their own so-called "personal" freedom. While doing so they ignore then the possible consequences of decisions. Hyperbola is therefore also not using the term "activists" or "activism" as exactly this is a casual consequence out of the "personal freedom". People find a role model for their own acting and while doing this, they forget that the person serving as "role model" is the same human being as they are also. So the people make surely not everything correct as we do not claim this also for us at Hyperbola. But in between there is a difference: People tend as consequence more and more to ignore any further criticism as a next step towards their chosen role models. This can even rise higher to the point where they open attack others criticizing possible wrong doings from those individuals serving as role model. The "generic" freedom as Hyperbola is open in favor of means that we reflect back towards our doing at any possible time. The essential question is not: What is my role model doing? The essential question here is: What can I do to make something better? Where do I see issues? The focus is then taken from the inner person towards the outside. So in ideal way speaking there is always an individual perspective within the outer group and the outer group is within the individual perspective. Favorized therefore instead of a false balance: A movement can only exist for a longer period when it is build upon on straight working values, motivating every person always to hear out arguments and criticize open. When we only have role models, we also are fast at a point of authoritarian elements getting stronger and then also at questionable ideas of "leadership", at worst point also even direct without any chance of democratic ideas. Hyperbola does not accept open stated "dictatorship" even when marked as some kind of "bad joke". No blinded following people, but enabling people to do on their own. To support them controlling their system to its roots. 
 + 
 +===== No meritocratic organization of the team ===== 
 + 
 +Hyperbola is declining the widespreaded organization and usage of meritocratic values in the team-work. Per definition the term is often utilised to refer to social systems in which personal advancement and success primarily reflect an individual's capabilities and merits. So the more one member of team organized in that way is doing, the more power and rights the member has. We do not want such organization for our team, so everyone and every community-member has the same rights but also duties. Let's take an example: When a community-member reports an issue and grant a helping hand, the person will be also noted in the packaging-script as contributor. When someone wants to maintain a package, the person is surely the noted maintainer in the packaging-script. Doing own ports and packages is at any given time possible and sharing them with the community is highly appreciated. When people want to support in the web-infrastructure, they are supported in every possible way. 
 + 
 +In general Hyperbola is as said in the favor to enable users: Seeing them at the same users and developers! 
 + 
 +===== Removing problematic parts of a software-package is not a restriction of user-freedom ===== 
 + 
 +When we talk here at Hyperbola about removal of software or parts of a software defined as problematic, we do this in regard to grant the users freedom and the possibility to stay the most time independent. For example the usage of additional package-managers inbound with projects like Rust (cargo) or Python (pip): Those most common usecase is to simplifiy the setup of complex dependencies the user would need to manually install and balance furthermore. In that process not everyone has the same insights and it can get very complicated to research a long list of needed dependencies with their licensing. Also there is a growing chance that some dependencies are further pulling more problems into likewise non-free services and other licensing-issues. So we keep it simple said: **The major root-filesystem is free and libre, except the user decides to modify it and is then complete individual responsible for those modifications. What a user is doing in the own home-folder, is not our perspective.** 
 + 
 +And when a software-project includes so many problematic parts that patches can't overcome the issues, we stop any further inclusion and list the package as complete incomaptible. Also here the user decides later on, if own builds may work for the individual usecase. Meanwhile the critical state of several software-projects should be open seen and recognized. Either the result is that there are possible alternatives or nothing is done, which in fact may be even enhance the further risk for free, libre software and culture to grant user a possible freedom of choice. 
 + 
 +There is no contradiction in this perspective Hyperbola is using: It is always based on the decision of the user and the user is in command for every step done. But our system is defined free and libre and we do not want to change this approach. 
 + 
 +===== There is surely not an own or different definition of "free software" ===== 
 + 
 +Hyperbola as project has clearly not any own definition of free and libre software, also not any different to the known common four freedoms. This fallacy and phrase is foremost used to blame the project for excluding software alike **Rust**, **PHP** or **Java** being defined as free by organizations like the FSF. 
 + 
 +In fact we have no doubts that those software-projects include common known free, libre and permissive licenses. But a further research of the conditions for offering packages being based on them showed exactly problems and issues coming up when we modify them. Taking the example of **Rust**: We would need to remove any official name of the trademarked language itself, ask for further permissions as removal of the package-manager **Cargo** would also redefine the way the whole compilation is working. We would also need to remove all official names, logos and more out of provided sources, binaries, creating in fact a complete new fork. And this would be then a task on-going for every new release with more added parts then in need to researched and finding then also ways to compile this. We have tried to communicate the issues multiple times and documented also the problems in our [[https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:philosophy:rust_issues|separated article about Rust]]. 
 + 
 +We can clearly refer to the named issues as freedom-flaws as it is not possible to finally provide a package under the known name and trademark (//read [[https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:philosophy:trademarks|here]] more about our stance towards trademarks//). Nevertheless people misuse the article to blame Hyperbola as project: It is absolutely not an "own definition", just the mentioning of issues being there and the conclusion not to provide any kind of package. As Hyperbola is also itself absolutely free and libre software any community-member can build an own package and therefore include the here as excluded mentioned projects also, providing packaging-scripts for everyone else when willing. We do not distribute the software-projects out of reasoning, same as every other system-project has preferences. But blaming Hyperbola exactly for this does not work out: We recognize the licensing, but just state that there are flaws and we are not doing work removing those flaws. 
 + 
 +===== Neither intolerance nor absolute pragmatism ===== 
 + 
 +Within this article we already mentioned the wording "pragmatism" as a false approach. But this does not mean we do not recognize other systems or react with pure intolerance. In fact we do not really bother further as Hyperbola is our approach of **technical emancipation**. This does not there must be only our vision alone. This to underline includes therefore that **we do not follow approaches like describing other systems as useless**. We also do not recognize our way as the "only" one viable. Yes, we criticize as said several problems and speak / write about them. But foremost we wish that users get more insights into systems they are using, being capable to find out issues and find different ways forward. 
 + 
 +That being said: Describing the "absolute pragmatism" is the same as stating to use "somewhat free licensed but with several issues while not caring in any way about as long as the license seem okay". The "intolerance" within that is also not our way as we recognize possible issues on the way for software- and hardware-freedom. So we do not follow endless debates here to find every possible issue worthwhile we also do not accept foul compromises. We just look on the software-packages and -projects, test them and when fitting within our perspective about minimalism and orientation towards a nice long living, stable operating-system we approve them, support users or create possible packages. Please be aware that we clearly also do not use false descriptions like "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences|narcissism of small differences]]" within here. We know those mechanisms but reject them and also the explanation is just too shortened especially when it comes towards critical points to explain antisemitism. With that shortened approach it is not possible to explain such hateful and harassing ideologies. Also it is not possible to exclude people and groups as "outsiders" just because they are strict about their principles and values. We can only make an appointment again not to fall into this trap and fallacy for shortened explanations! 
 + 
 +===== A clear defined audience, user-base and peer-group ===== 
 + 
 +When looking at phrases like "Hyperbola is for everyone" we see need to define clearly that Hyperbola as operating-system is **not meant for everyone**. No, this does not mean we want to exclude people. But to have a clear perspective on the project everyone with the will to read through the articles should understand that Hyperbola is not meant for everyone when there is no will to read through documentation, source-material and furthermore also to look deep into the running system itself. 
 + 
 +Hyperbola is also not meant as system for every beginner, when there is no understanding about UNIX-based systems, the commandline handling, source-code for software and generic the free, libre movement in general. Hyperbola has its clear defined audience and user-base. Anyone with the will to learn and communicate friendly gets a warmth welcome here for as much teaching as possible and wanted. Users with no will for this and having the expectation that others build and configure the software should not await any further helping hand. 
 + 
 +===== Being polite, friendly but also oriented on values and principles is no contradiction ===== 
 + 
 +In time we have now a growing collection of harsh words, phrases and sentences alike "dictatorship of being polite" or "conspiracy theories are useful for critical thinking". There are many more foremost also stating a very specialized issue to be found within the way people approach each other in the global network called "internet" itself. This means with the most possible disregard for decency, kindness and etiquette. Just to enforce own needs and views and to shape the project according to these some people use those techniques, which we strict reject at any given point. 
 + 
 +Hyperbola is no place to treat others with that amount of selfish perspectives or even worse toxic behavior. Just for this we have our [[https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:project:social_contract|social contract]] and there is no need to act harsh or harass community-members. But especially on that matter we also clearly underline that we do not and will not tolerate abusive behavior and usage of abusive methods. Hyperbola is meant as an inclusive, friendly place, where people meet up for free, libre software, data and culture. If anyone wants to misuse or deform this for own matters, we have no other choice but as to exclude this person. **Hyperbola is not the place to live out narcissistic desires or other wishful thinking. Please live this out somewhere else, but not here!** 
 + 
 +Also we are clearly no "personal playground" for other perhaps even positive meant ideals: When you want to change and contribute something, you would clearly need also to take this on your own and support on that way. Hyperbola is a **Do it yourself!** oriented project. An example: You want to approve a package and software-project? Do not ask for its inclusion and start to package this on your own, test services you are interested in when they are free and libre licensed in their source code and approve your theories. When you just debate this in IRC or other ways, there will be nothing more coming out as you only waste time and energy of others, including your own. But when you try this out with Hyperbola as installed system, you have even reached a good step forward when it all works as you imagined. Yes, we can talk about essential issues, debate out free software theories and more. But Hyperbola is a project about doing and creating, not about endless talking when in the end the appointed steps are left for a minority to be done. We have no interest in endless talks, drama-making and just the known steps to reproduce endless more empty arguments and promises. 
 + 
 +===== There are no such description alike "somewhat free" or "mostly free" ===== 
 + 
 +When we use the term "free software" we also clearly mean and state a position for software being clearly released under the terms of free and libre culture / software. So there are **no restrictions** how people act with the software besides surely respecting the rights of authors and creators stated. At most the four freedoms are respected. This relies not only to software but also forward to hardware.
  
-By clear description "censorship" is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information. Not adding a concrete package is in that definition not even nearing this description and acting. In fact we invite people to be also contributors and build their own packages and ports, further also sharing their build-files for the community. So in that conclusion "censorship" is clearly something Hyperbola rejects.+Surely hardware is a very complex area, but we await that people acting also with clear facts instead of half-truths or clearly wrong information only stated because of their convinience and imagination. Yes, hardware is not always possible to be fully freedom-oriented but the term here is **as much freedom-oriented as possible** especially. Not as the above terms proposing. Also we reject concepts like **argumentum ad populum**, which is a fallacious argument based on claiming an affirmation for something is good or correct because many people - the majority - think so. That is clearly wrong as the inverse argument, that something that is unpopular must be flawed, is also a form of this fallacy. Within this there are no facts approved why something is therefore correct or flawed, just the assumption about the approval of the masses. With this there is also again another approval for problematic relation towards conspiracies becoming clear as the adoption of lies as "facts" is therefore done on that way: The longer lies are repeated and described as "true" the faster it is possible to mark real information and facts as flawed, while democratic positions are also marked at the same time as flawed. Something is not flawed just because people feel or / and imagine for it being that way, there are always facts and information to be named.
  
 ===== Conclusion ===== ===== Conclusion =====
  
-This article is written with the intention of clearing possible misguidance and misinterpretation. Hyperbola was, is and will be always a project oriented on democratic values. But this also means that Hyperbola is not supporting clear marked lies and propaganda resulting from shortened phrases and buzzwords. A democracy needs rules for orientation and not to grant the highest amount of egocentric will. Giving back means also to grant support and help for each other, to empower every member to overview possible risks and never stop learning. If you are same committed to those values and principles, feel welcome here at the project and in our community. If you decline the essentials written down, Hyperbola is not the place you want to engage. This may look like exclusion, but is in fact only the clear statement that anybody is asked to question own perspectives. Rules are not always perfect same way, so if there is a clear point seen we ask always for feedback and criticism. Do not hesitate to get in touch with us and support in the development of this project.+This article is written with the intention of clearing possible misguidance and misinterpretation. Hyperbola was, is and will be always a project oriented on democratic values. But this also means that Hyperbola is not supporting clear marked lies and propaganda resulting from shortened phrases and buzzwords. A democracy needs rules for orientation and not to grant the highest amount of egocentric will. Giving back means also to grant support and help for each other, to empower every member to overview possible risks and never stop learning. If you are same committed to those values and principles, feel welcome here at the project and in our community. If you decline the essentials written down, Hyperbola is not the place you want to engage. This may look like exclusion, but is in fact only the clear statement that anybody is asked to question own perspectives. Rules are not always perfect same way, so if there is a clear point seen we ask always for feedback and criticism. We turn against materialism and the disdain of the imagination, against lies and false weights of freedoms as well as against the devaluation of empathy and solidarity. Do not hesitate to get in touch with us and support in the development of this project.