Within this article we want to give insights in a very dangerous development all around soft- and hardware. But before we are going deeper into the details, first some generic notes about our choice for this exactly very strong phrase: The feudalism, also known as the feudal system, was a combination of legal, economic, military, cultural, and political customs that defined the medieval Europe from the 9th to 15th centuries. It was a way of structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour.

But where is exactly the comparison to our current times and the medieval Europe or better exactly the structures in usage at those times? When looking close enough to the structures in usage and how people act and care about software generic we are in fact very close nowadays. And exactly this is the opposite of being active in free and libre software as even the defined difference towards the phrase “open-source” is more than vague.

Soft- and hardware is without any doubt even more complex than some years ago. More dependencies, more risks and also more demands towards people developing and making usage of. Installation of a system not common towards the newest hardware? Not really easy, people have to bother with several more questions, issues with configuration, getting drivers working and therefore hardware running correct. There are several clear examples: Is it possible to just write a complete new webbrowser from scratch? Depending on the own definition but also on the common perspective, but the most direct answer would be exactly “NO”. It is not only about rendering some texts and images. We are talking here about a very complex construct to follow rules, interpretation and scripts being included. Media has to be shown and streamed data should be offered.

But what happened exactly to the definition of a webbrowser? Most common answer as always very vague first: Software is enhanced and redefined over time. But the essential question is ignored: Was this development and redefinition really needed or is this something getting out of control because of the most common problem: The ignorance thinking to have something out of control nevertheless under control? Yes, those questions and theses sound like very exaggerated. Nevertheless let's give it a try: So we already said that we see dangerous developments within the technical spheres, including free and libre software also. What are those exactly now?

Software is defined to be a toolset for people: To create automation, helpful processing data and in generic having data and information easier managed. Free, libre software in special is the included promise that people have always the right to learn, modify and share the software, surely respecting authors while themself have always a chance being also another author in the list. But the development software in general has taken within the last years is beyond exactly that. People are no longer attending, no longer getting easier help with processing data and information. And even more people have to “pay” on different levels, without recognizing this: Paying with labour, with service, with data and information offered. We need to be careful: This is not to be compared with the generic position to give something back, so engaging within and for free, libre and community-driven software. We talk here about in most parts “open-source” but also the issue that both - free, libre software and “open-source” as vague term - are used to describe the same: Something offered “free”, but in that context “gratis” is the wording most people have in mind.

And this has changed in the last years even more drastically to a point we are now define this as technical feudalism. As system this is nothing to bring all people the same way forward, giving everyone the same chance and possibilities. It is a system about pure inequality, driven by a perspective of “natural hierarchy”. Any individual within this kind of system has a clear role, without ever having the chance to get to another point, another perspective. So we at Hyperbola say that this kind of system is making not only inequal but also is driven backwards, inhuman and is created with the clear perspective to be malicious and exploited for advantages towards individuals having a fortune position.

The original idea from the early days of software: Sharing information, sharing code, sharing progress and working together. Yes, a very simplified and ideal picture in use. But let's look on software nowadays: As users we are told what we should NOT do and companies are using their trademarks and patents for sure either as pure restriction or symbolically patronized gesture. People are granted the possibility to build software around patents shared without royalties. And what about the possible danger that patents are no longer granted? Usage from that point is no longer allowed or only under some very clear restrictions? As those patents and trademarks themself are that complex most people ignore this or are advised to ignore them, even around the spheres of free, libre projects. Also here another very dangerous development: Is this really the progress we want? The point to get people away from restrictions by just ignoring them or pretending they are no longer existing? In fact all of them nevertheless exist. They are just - as already said: Ignored or taken out of the perspective. So if system-distributions include that kind of project, it has to be “somewhat” free and permissive, so working.

We call this subordination, because people are really no longer able to have fluid roles between “usage” and “development”. They are really tied into the role “user” and only accept what is being delivered. But what about projects where people are under even more subordination? Complete environments are built around restricting frameworks, just to name some of them: systemd, pulseaudio, wayland, dbus and more. All of them are given the promise and appearance to be “free and permissive licensed”. But all of them are even more complex and monolithic in their code. And people engage within those projects, giving their time and ideas to projects not in the hands of the community, but most in hands of corporations and companies.

There are enough so-called buzzwords. Some to name: Cloud, big data, artificial intelligence. All of them are simplified and even more far away to describe what really happens. Is there really some “cloud”? No, there is nothing alike, just other people's computer-systems. Is there really “big data”? No, there is only a big amount of data collected on the highest unethical ways collected and subsumed later on to get profiling of individuals and groups. The only measurement is to get even more profit with the data people hand out at their so-called free will. In fact people are not asked and many have unlearned to ask critical or they never will learn these skills doing so, because they grow up with a complete understanding. Is there any “artificial intelligence”? No, there are many algorithms trained again with the high amount of unethical collected data.

Those buzzwords and many more alike are used to make the impression complexity is always “under control”. People may have the impression that nothing wrong is done with their data. And no one has anything to fear, so no one has anything to hide. But in fact everyone has a right to hide information: Do we really think all is self-evident? Democratic principles? Free software? The essential human rights? Nothing of those are given out of being self-evident. We have to debate every day again and make points clear, draw absolute red lines and literal fight for human rights, living in dignity and peace for everyone. Including the right to hide sensible information, protecting data. Protection needed exactly because of technical feudalism as we have not even talked about the so-called invisible workforces behind the so-called “automatic cloud-services”. When looking only close enough we can see many people working behind the scenes. The “digital day laborers” being engaged behind the scenes, to get services running. Uber is one prominent example as they pretend to offer a service where people can book driving. But in fact all the working people as “Uber drivers” are made invisible. And that's surely not the whole story as there are many more controversies.

In fact we disrespect the people behind the so-called “digital services”, while not seeing their engagement and also not reacting when they call for help. Bad or even missing payment? Without any doubts inhuman treatment with demands of high workloads? Being misused to moderate the possible cruelest moments people share on platforms without getting psychological help and more support? Being just complete invisible in general in a per definition inhuman system. Just a number, just another entry in another database, just some set of data being “used for any further purpose at will”. We state not wanting to create ultimate “transparent human being”? Well, we are going beyond and create ourselves as machine being. Categorized at will through numbers, controlled via algorithms and our consume is same way a good part of it. Do we ask ourself what happens with our environment when we consume more and more? When we want to stream everything and take that to remote services? Oh yes, services like Steam or Battle.net may simulate something interesting: Get multimedial and interactive entertainment at any time given and possible, immediately only one download away. Same for streaming-services like Netflix, Disney+ or whatever else. And what next? What happens when the whole mankind is “streaming”? Do we think what happens with the hardware no longer needed? Or do we just think that others can have it - of course not without costs as capitalism is needed to be served also. And what about the “others”? Are they not also earning a good life? How about we get a bit more back to the grounds and talk to each other? Stopping our journey into self-destruction, would be quite a thought worth. Besides that: None of the services mentioned before is granting anything more as to rent something, not to use and do it as often as someone wants. No connection? No account or period of usage over? End of service, end of connection. And if we only look close enough: Also end of participation for many users, either because they have not the possible hardware or the money doing so. Free, libre software should be on ethical grounds more as just some perspective for the egoistic freedom some stated and state nevertheless on-going. It should be more than a playfield for buzzwords and foul promises. And besides all of that: Have users of especially named services for “gaming” a bit more about the rights they have got? In fact you are renting software. You do not even own a license for usage any longer, you are just “allowed” to use the software as long as someone is granting you this. And if there is no longer interest doing so, it is just as easy as possible to take those rights away. That's also another big issue: You have paid for software you cannot execute at one given point any longer.

The once made promise of free, libre software are the four freedoms.

• Freedom 0: The freedom to use the program for any purpose.
• Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
• Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute and make copies so you can help your neighbor.
• Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

But as before mentioned: When we include interfaces to non-free services, can we call the result even free and libre any longer? And is the effort to remove that again even useful by any means in the long term perspective? When non-free services are included in Gnome and KDE, are those projects really doing any commitment to free software? Even further: Free, libre software and projects are used from enough participants and companies to create even more complex installations and services no longer giving people the inclusion aspect already mentioned. In fact many free software projects made it possible to act that fast and develop solutions no longer providing easy and simple open, free data for people to do further engagement. It is the opposite: People should just enter their data and information, so they can be evaluated for the highest amount of profit. People are only seen as “useful tools”, instead they can see software as tools following their input transparent and open.

Some further examples of now or before free and permissive licensed, but in the outcome problematic projects:

• zstd: The compression algorithm is using a clear trademark and patent claim (link), granting the right to revoke the license at will.
• redis: The in-memory storage service changed its licensing model towards the Redis Source Available License 2.0 (RSALv2) Agreement, making the whole project no longer following free, permissive licensing.

For sure those examples are not possible to be compared and have a wider perspective following, likewise redis did so because their services and software was also used again from others without granting back financial support. But we can see clearly here that free, libre software is loosing on a generic field. There was never any chance to have named projects really controlled by the open and wide community of people, making it possible for everyone to attend and enhance, to copy, modify and share. As alike Rust we have nowadays projects with a perspective on trademarks and licenses more than near to clear non-free software, making possible movement forward even more strict when it comes to modifications, cutting out parts and share those again. Failed constructs in the end.

And to copy failed constructs and ideas does not make the essential problem better: Implementing a so-called “platform” on the base of being decentralized is nothing else than to copy only the problem in another context. At a given point technical feudalism restarts again: May it be on the own-hosted instance of Mastodon, Diaspora or just again the closed-source comparable services. In the end data is collected, people get under possible wrong influences, missing competence towards media and propaganda is getting this even faster and we are loosing all more attention. Attention is needed for having democratic values running, for having a fair treatment. But in fact those platforms distort the discourse completely. We have therefore also mentioned parts of this in another article.

And what about the “neutral political position”? Well, that does not work out very good also. Enough free software projects are already misused by individuals and groups opposing democratic principles. Misguiding people into the darkest possible assumptions and theories, with pure disregard for human rights, inclusion and a peaceful living together side by side in partnership. But we all should beware: The warnings were there, are here for exactly that moment. We just need to pay attention, be interested exactly for this. When we do not pay attention, we ignore the warnings, we will loose the once meant self-evident rights, very fast. There are enough examples already showing the upcoming issues! As said: Copying a broken concept, is not resulting in better solutions.

All of this is no “evil masterplan”. The most problems arise out of ignorance or the illusion of having nevertheless the control. When for example around 720.000 hours of video-material running is uploaded, is this no longer possible to evaluate. But there are questions left: How much space and capacities are needed in fact? Just adding even more space, more capacities and therefore needed energy consumption for servers can not be the solution. Even though we have enough excuses that more is needed for more data. That's logic, but what about less data? Less data collection and people just rejecting those offerings: Adding more to their own hosted cloud? Or remote hosted services? Do we really need them?

Also the question is staying: At what current point someone is becoming part of technical feudalism as clear enabling this systematic approach? It is surely interesting hosting and offering services for others. We need such approaches more than ever. Nevertheless please also remember that this includes a high amount of own responsibility as in comparison someone is becoming really the “landlord” for others data. Protect the data with care, otherwise we need the different point as even decentralized services are not enough to oppose the rising ignorance we have. And exactly that is the major issue: The ignorance of everyone, because what is the possible impact? Violation of data-protection is in the first place not to be seen, only if it is too late and others have the data already in their hands. And we are here not only talking about misusage of any government, institution or company. We are also talking about individual acting persons and groups doing whatever they want with the data: For their own profit? For tormenting others they dislike for whatever kind of weird reasoning?

Democracy is living from pluralism, from multi-cultural perspectives being in peace together. There is not just one singular perspective and we are living also with contradictions on a daily base. But this is a first point to accept the contradictions and then work real problems out. And one essential problem is ignorance and arrogance, often described as some intentional planning. In reality this is chaotic driven, but the outcome is a disaster and a catastrophe for democratic values, including the protection of every individual living within, not harassment, not exclusion and for sure not making people invisible and not seen.

In fact we stand in front of a systematic bankruptcy for moral and ethics. People state loud to engage for “freedom”, but in fact they do not mean for real “freedom” as word for inclusion and instead “freedom” as word for their own egoism. It is not standing for moral and ethics, it is about the on-going ethical erosion. We have services as stated before being not moderated or where moderation is compared to “censorship”, while there can be real doubts that people stating such have no imagination what real “censorship” can be and what kind of consequences arise out of it. We have actors willing to embrace the darkest sides of the political landscape as long as it serves their influence, so a good comparison to technical feudalism. We have those people sharing the perspective that no moderation is better for everyone and leaving people in grave danger to attacks risen out of hatred and harassment, reaching even unknown states of victimization and suffering. As mentioned individuals and groups going off-road and their support for conspiracy theories and questionable political actors shows that they have lost their compass for moral integrity.

But exactly this compass for moral integrity is needed, especially for free, libre software and culture. It is not only about “freedom at any costs”. It is about “freedom for all people but based on moral and ethics”. Free software is not just another kind of toolset for the own egoism and some libertarian wish.

What do we otherwise have? People convinced that freedom and democracy are incompatible, working tirelessly to create a world in which only the strongest survive. For those people social justice and collective responsibility are nothing but obstacles on the path to unlimited power. They embody a mindset that sees the internet as a “jungle” in which only the most unscrupulous succeed - and it is precisely this mentality that is dominating. It is proof that in the digital world the boundaries between freedom and chaos, between innovation and irresponsibility have long since blurred. The freedom promised here is an empty shell that only serves to protect those who use these platforms for their own purposes. That tragic is that those stating to know about conspiracies and “evil masterplans” have their own perspective, so people should be exactly here very cautious. Freedom without responsibility is dangerous. It shows that the world of technology, once seen as a beacon for a better future, is riddled with moral faults that are going ever deeper as long people are not willing to see the problems. What remains is a digital wasteland where the power of the few is exercised on the backs of the many. On behalf of technical feudalism not driven by ideals but just on the maximization of power, influence and the own thing they call “freedom”. What happens with the freedom of others? Not left within this equation or better is an unknown variable, an empty variable left without any room. And even those actors do not really see the consequences of their actions, it is just their thought to have all they want, right here and now. What happens tomorrow stays also at tomorrow, as an empty space. But exactly this erosion is a long-term one and leaving it only lasting long enough left out also possible repairs in the best perspective as it is also an erosion of the democratic institutions all over our world. We change in fact nothing, when we adapt crucial dangerous developments like the before named under those buzzwords: Who needs unethical collected data and information, as the results are not for all people? And even than: Unethical collected and worked out data stays the same, even when they bring some “results”. Or is it just that: Some curious watch and then the next is coming with little steps ahead? We endanger nevertheless the freedom for every being, no matter how we call that later on. The worst thing to be left at the end of this section: Who is “they” in fact we are describing here? Surely others, but also us. Exactly we in that current moment we ignore issues or just one issue, even not big and nevertheless with the option to get bigger likewise non-free licensed data-files. This means everyone is capable to create such kind of damage and that is the point of responsibility we are describing here.

The community around free, libre software has many naming-schemes likewise “free but shackled”. A software using non-free parts is perhaps under those perspectives “shackled”. But is that for real a good perspective? Making a project “free” with some patching?

That is not even possible when talking about software like Rust. Yes, it may work to ignore the on-going contradictions. But we cannot oversee the cracks this has caused as free, libre defined projects and software has enabled the before called actors - individuals and groups / organizations - to do what they do. All what was needed is the correct decision to a fitting point of time. The refusal to reflect own perspectives and roots have brought free, libre software to the point where the whole word even vanished and got fuzzy, blurred out into vague definitions with “open-source”. Nowadays something “open” or “open-source”, without the context where free, libre software starts and the neoliberalism with “open-source” ends. We accepted too many contradictions and organizations like the Free Software Foundation globally failed to do what their own mission-statement was: Defending the freedom with responsibility. Accepting contradictions as long as there is enough room left, but there is none.

Is there really a conclusion at this point? Perhaps not really. But there is a warning within: We need to stay critical. We need to learn more and enhance within media literacy. When we are talking about enhanced algorithms within software, being even able to generate images near reality or even beyond, we need to find conclusions how to protect what is a clear lie, used for distraction and misguidance. Certainly anyone who has the power to make us believe absurdities has the power to make us commit injustices, beyond any imagination. We therefore also need to remember always the history, learning from it. Not drawing a final cut as events happened too long ago: Therefore we should have an active culture to remember, to view back, to learn and archive our data and information correct, but not in the contradiction of mass surveillance and wrong promises. Otherwise we can only state and conclude that we are looking ahead in a not very bright and good future: Small, simple systems are more than ever needed. A clear direction away from buzzwords and in the end therefore also power handed over to untrustworthy individuals, organizations, companies and corporations. Any kind of company is not granting a gift just because they are oriented on the greater good. A company does not understand ethics and moral, only profit and power combined with it, in the end only technical feudalism. We could state even that there is no “gift”, never was and never will be. It is done out of a complete different thought, out of the motivation to redefine wordings for the profit. And until the community within free, libre software and culture does not make a harsh difference, is able to do a retrospective on the own roots for altruistic sharing for information and data, until then the technical feudalism is able to cause even more damage, including people with the once different thought getting away from altruism towards the behavior of real “landlords” sharing services for only their advantages. When people are granted power, we can see their real actions at a point and themself can see what their inner longings always were, in every possible direction.

And what is our final position? We are living in times, where people delegitimize humanistic-democratic orientations and clear progressive meant political perspectives. The only perspective counting is the self and egocentric one, others are not part of this. Hyperbola is the different meant orientation as we want to make clear that free, libre software and culture have a clear political orientation. We want that people question social conflicts and start also to question the so-called “status quo” in soft- and hardware. Otherwise as written down here we hand out power to other actors, clearly not on the side of democratic perspectives, clearly not on the side of elementary freedom for all beings. If we leave problems open, if we are willing to handover power to authoritarian populists, we will clearly loose step by step. The GPL and other free, libre and permissive licenses were once created to grant people elementary rights. But they are only tools, when it comes to people using them clearly wrong. So this needs a personal note and perspective, the will to look clearly instead just pragmatic.

Democracy is not just a “tool” for individual rights and egoism, it is meant as inclusion of all willing and not serving just one majority. This also means to defend the rights of a minority against the perspectives of the majority, standing together in solidarity and not just to accept what is given as some kind of “status quo”. If the majority is thinking to go this path, to enforce only one perspective for free, libre software and wrongly make accusations towards projects for just defending also the perspective of the minority, then free, libre software has lost its current course as it should be no problem to include diverse landscape of beings and also software itself. Just enforcing one principle sounds on the paper as working but in the practical usage it is going against everything. Using a so-called democratic discourse to in fact distract a project, is also the opposite of the original intention for that wording. In the end free, libre software can fail to empower all beings, when the here described process of ignorance is further growing and adaption of non-free services for projects or just the communication also is further used. Free, libre software is not only an adaption of freedom, it is the base for digital empowerment, for clear technical emancipation instead of technical feudalism. Projects mentioned here using clear problematic frameworks are surely using free and permissive licensing, but in the end fail for empowering as this is just another illusion when speaking about non-free services used.