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.

The wording “freedom” is most time referenced in social and technical ways. Generic said Hyperbola is always following the four freedoms defined:

• 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 to be clearly seen this only refers to the software itself and what people can and should be always allowed to do. The word “freedom” is further enhanced by people around the sphere of free, libre software and culture. Most referenced in the meaning of “freedom of speech” but here we are leaving the term of technical and social definition direct and even worse also leave a clear meant definition.

The definition “freedom of speech” is even not clear when looking on different countries and cultural meanings. So Hyperbola nevertheless wants to define this corresponding to the goals of the project itself: In respect of the four freedoms quoted above Hyperbola as project for sure respects the freedom of speech, but always in combination with the duty of responsibility. In regards to our social contract we await from every person active in our community to respect the personal limits drawn from an individual. There is no such thing like “freedom of speech”, when insults and harassment is included. There is also no such thing like “freedom of expression”, when this means to reject clear facts and common sense information. The personal freedom always ends, when others get restricted by any means and this clearly includes also dehumanizing and propaganda for harassment in general. There is no such thing alike “marketplace of ideas” where the so-called best idea gets seen when only enough people encourage it. Under those vague and even false definition a dangerous competition is rising, with the ground idea of pure pragmatism towards anything helpful for the own self.

Hyperbola as project is not interested to welcome such competition and discussions about hearsay, half-truths or even worse conspiracy theories are never encouraged here. Also it is clearly declined to use the word “freedom” in such relation and context: Surely everyone has an opinion and also a right for expression, but an opinion without any reasonable and rational base is not oriented on facts, just as mentioned hearsay. Hyperbola awaits from every community-member to use facts, there is no freedom of speech without responsibility to reflect the wording. Words can do harm when misused and therefore we await also respect and a clear will to stand up for each other. False claims are never to be defined as “freedom”.

So what is freedom here at Hyperbola?

Freedom is including the four mentioned ones for sure at any time in regards of the technical terms and social rights. But freedom also includes the responsibility of looking beyond the own self and motivation. There is always a community, a group of beings with given rules. Here the rules are clearly to read in the Hyperbola Social Contract and also how we wish to work together as team.

And what is freedom not for Hyperbola?

Freedom does not include only the own and personal freedom, the pure egoism. When this is the only measurement size for you we can state that conflicts will rise for sure. Hyperbola is as project not here to fulfill only wishes for more packages, more code and a minority being under the pressure to always deliver. Hyperbola is a platform, a system-distribution and a free, libre operating-system giving everyone interested a toolset for technical emancipation. But emancipation means also that people should stand up for developing on their own, not to await always guidance but also to research and learn more about the system in usage. Egoism includes the expectation of full flavored guidance with complete, written tutorials step by step in defined commands just to copy and use. This is exactly not the kind of freedom we have here in mind likewise we also oppose any “freedom of speech” without respecting own responsibilities and influence taken.

As before in regards of the wording “freedom” we have here the next one named “pragmatism”. The issue here is a quite different one as surely pragmatism is not an issue when seen as approach for development. But there is also a different layer meant towards packaging. Hyperbola has clear packaging guidelines and therefore rejects any contribution without a stable released tarball (or other format to download sources) and even missing sources in general.

Users in general are surely free to do whatever they like to do, but there is the difference also: It is your own responsibility when using pre-compiled binaries or software even without source-code to compile. But free, libre software and projects always include source-code to compile, modify and distribute in the understanding of Hyperbola as project. It is not acceptable to offer pre-compiled binaries. This kind of pragmatism on a more wide perspective is and will never be encouraged from Hyperbola and team-members.

What is pragmatism here at Hyperbola?

Simple and minimalistic oriented software is preferred, especially when following the UNIX-philosophy. Hyperbola is always source-based and as to be seen from the packaging guidelines we have a clear ruleset what we do and how we organize. Also Hyperbola is oriented to view out for prediction, problem solving, and action, offering a deterministic, free and libre system.

What is pragmatism not at Hyperbola?

We do not and will not offer software with questionable licensing and being too complex alone. It is always the decision of the users to decline or accept personal different approaches and what is installed on their system. But Hyperbola as project is not allowing binary distribution without source-code and also not distributing unstable software compiled from the repository. It maybe seen as pragmatic in a way to use what is fitting, nevertheless a personal decision from users.

We have already written about vague terms, so we have also now to mention “open-source” as another example in this category. In fact “open-source” is exactly designed to be used alike this: Free, libre software is for sure including also available source-code, but this is not the only definition fitting and using that term is rejected by Hyperbola as project. Free, libre software is using the four defined freedoms, the wording freedom as the orientation towards inclusive approaches with strict perspective on values of a free society, the will to help each other. The difference is that “open-source” is only describing one state without declaring under what permissions any further usage is allowed. A project can be defined as “open-source” and is at the same time not allowing any modification or further distribution, even compilation maybe later on not allowed. Another article describes the issues and logic failures for “open-source” in more depth!

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.

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!

We want to reach out to every member of the community reviewing our acting. Hyperbola is a project to grant the words “responsibility” and “trust” more than just the generic meaning. We trust in each other, so we also help and support same way as we talk open and criticize in respect. We are acting with responsibility, so we do not just package and distribute software without tests, further reviews and iterations when something is missing. Every direct team-member is for sure committed on this approach, but at the same time we await this from every member of the community. Ports and packaged software driven by community-members should be always reviewed for working and oriented on true free, libre and permissive licensed data and code.

You are disagreeing with some rules we have written? That is absolutely okay, but we therefore ask then to get in touch and work with us on better wording and textual design. Just to criticize for stating criticism without giving any point to work together is not the way forward, also not the way to grant more trust and develop a common understanding for responsibility. The one done from others, but also the one from the own position, so in relation the responsibility for each other!

The word and phrase “marketing” is most common used when it gets to the point having project better known in the eyes of the “global internet-community”. So people knowing Hyperbola as project better. But “marketing” as word is not only vague but also includes further questionable aspirations when it comes to clear principles: Using buzzwords and some false promises is exactly not the approach Hyperbola as project is in favor. Yes, we have no issues with materials like clothing with the official logo, but we are not oriented to spread hearsay about the project or building up false information. This always ends in unwanted dreamcastles nobody has any further advantage from and people get frustrated.

As project oriented on facts and information Hyperbola is rejecting shortened descriptions: So to note:

• There is no “cloud” just other people's computer-systems.
• There is no “artificial intelligence” as those are algorithms designed for machine learning in support of interpretation for different real language-based models.
• There is no “big data”, just a defined too big amount of data used for many unethical purposes.

Especially in the orientation of the last remark: Hyperbola does not consider to implement non-free platforms and services as any helpful and also rejects possible free, libre designed ones as the user is always in charge and command what should happen with personal data and input. Not any application should send data outside without noting its users! When users want such applications, frameworks and libraries on their system to be installed, they have to do this on their own. Hyperbola does not encourage the usage of applications and other software implementing web-services with the approach of fast development, because this also breaks the orientation of Hyperbola on a long-term stable focus.

The essential result out of free, libre licensed and designed software is not security and privcacy. They are also not the most important parts of freedom. Surely they are important, but they are caused throughout the possibility of free and libre software when users have the freedom to review the code and modify it based on their needs and interests. Software under an audit from its users at any given time has the possibility to be secure. But here comes a generic misunderstanding: This is not generic for every free, libre licensed software and project. This is also not coming out of nothing and when people just “use” the software without ever looking after its source-code and data, errors and failures are not seen. This is also a reference for cooperation and working together: A majority is using the work of a minority and is not offering any helping hand, does not work and is also a misguiding phrase then in the end when individuals claim: “Privacy and security are the most important parts of freedom.”

No, they are not. They are the result of working together and continuous cooperation. But not the most important part or just delivered “gratis”. And to trust anyone stating that the developed software is safe, the source-code on high standards and no backdoors are included or provided without granting access to the essential sources and data is nothing more than good faith with demand to trust instead to know. Of course it is also not easy to audit and review provided source-code of a project, so the same argument is also possible in regards to free, libre software being very big scaled with many sources and data-files. Therefore Hyperbola has the orientation towards minimalism. Sure thing we do not judge or ask for personal beliefs at any given time. But when we are confronted with beliefs based on “conspiracy theories” doing exactly harm to others or including the decision to endanger others, we will always take action on behalf of our social contract.

We have already used the term “conspiracy theory” in multiple other articles and explained why we reject them as model for explanations. Nevertheless we see the need to explain more in detail what exactly is our reference and why we decline this. We refer to a “conspiracy theory” is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a “conspiracy” by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation even when other explanations are more probable and logical approved. One example is the often used image of “evil companies and corporations” while the most logical explanation is ignorance and arrogance in the approach of preferred pragmatism. Generic to see that the term has a clear negative connotation.

So we refer to the term “conspiracy theory” as “hypothesized conspiracy” including a circular logic. Referring to “conspiracy theories” towards helpful for critical thinking is the opposite in fact. Critical thoughts are not the result of “conspiracy theories” as they are referring to clear processing and validating of theories resulting on further fact-based argumentation.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.