Re: On the good neutrality of free software

[Lorenzo L. Ancora]

To Quiliro:
> [...] This whole  discussion is based on the assumption that the definitions of 
> one person
> should be accepted by the rest.

All definitions are from the Cambridge dictionary. Nothing original.

> > If an FSD administrator wants to reject a software he/she must also
> > add a valid motivation in the edit summary and that means explaining
> > the specific reason for deletion. [...]
> Telling others what to do is certainly not a productive to anyone.  Or
> is it?

I've only described the standard editorial procedure for wikis.

> Something additional to consider is that logical positions are merely
> justifications for previously underlying feelings pushing towards a
> certain attitude.  That is the way the unconscious works according to
> psychologists.

That only if there is an impediment to catharsis during a session. :-D
A steadier conclusion might be that I genuinely like rational positions.

To Denis:
> Do you have example of software that is and is not political?

Mmmhhh.... you just requested in a newsletter the names of political 
software to someone who's against giving popularity to political 
software and that just after stating you are in favor of politics in 
software.  Nice. :-|

Political: notepad++ and the software you just cited, Commonist, which 
sports a politic flag in the logo. Maybe others, if they are obviously 
political (ie. you don't have to infer it);

Not political: anything else.

> Is Firefox political (it tries to block a bit of the tracking)? What
> about icecat (it blocks more tracking and even has modified Firefox to
> not even promote nonfree addons)? What about a free version of Chromium?
> Is any new browser with different positions on surveillance political
> because it changes something? Should all browser not protect users to
> not be political?

If, for example, the developer of a web browser publicly challenges a 
certain country with a statement or satire, then his/her product 
inevitably becomes a political tool.
In general, web browsers are not political tools because they implement 
filtering with the exclusive aim of protecting the user experience. So, 
their specific behavior isn't tied to challenge a certain country, its 
government or its citizens.

> In France, software applications related to the COVID pandemic made by
> or for the Government are discussed a lot by the press and the people.
> So I guess that by extensions all COVID applications would be
> considered political, else it wound't be fair.

The purpose of those applications is to save human lives.
Something isn't political only because the press or the people discuss 
about it.

Let's make some intentionally over-the-top examples.

"Please citizen get vaccinated to save the life of your immunodeficient 
neighbor!" isn't a political statement, it is just common sense.

If a certain pandemic-related app is clearly associated with a certain 
political message like ie. "Only evil member of group XYZ take the 
vaccine shot and hence should be marked with a pink permanent marker on 
their forehead!", then yes, it is clearly a political tool. If you see 
the flag of a political party somewhere, then it is a political tool. If 
a software is clearly tied to a certain, specific political party (not 
"the Government") then it is a political software, vaccine or not, 
because in this case the vaccine is just an excuse to create an app or, 
in other words, the primary purpose of the app is not to help the end user.

> If we instead take "trying to influence the way a country is
> governed", here it applies to a huge quantity of software because there
> is something called "prefigurative politics". Mediawiki, git, and
> almost all collaborative software would probably fit into this category.

...and in the same way ripe bananas are dangerous cudgels.
                        Obviously no.

Don't quibble to dilute the concept, stay focused: if a software is 
political it is easy to spot, because it is intentionally tied to a 
certain political message. Political software is and will always be a 
1/1000 of existing software because normally software is developed to 
solve one or more issues of the end users and eventually make profit, so 
when someone tries to exploit it to send a political message that 
situation becomes obvious, like in the case of notepad++.

> If we go this route, that would probably create a lot of political
> fights on what software would be allowed or not.

For this reason, the task of approving submitted software rests solely 
on the administrators. If a software is controversial it is fairly 
obvious. In case of doubt, quick majority vote and problem solved.

> I think that being more political aware when working on
> software would probably be a good thing as some software can
> potentially have huge impact on the world (both positive and negative).

The only purpose of the FSD is listing and representing free software.

The burden of "changing the world" with honeyed words is far better 
outsourced to politicians during public debates.

> [...the rest of the email...]

You email contain terms like "Communism", "Capitalism", "taxes", 
"accepting the status quo", "peasantry", "tractors", "human labor" and 
even "revolts against machines". No dude, I won't take the bite.

This will be my very last answer:

	If the source code, the repository or anything public on which the 
developer has editorial power contains a clear and explicit political 
statement/satire visible by those interested in the software, then the 
software is a political tool.

In other words, to be sure it is 100% clear:

	If a software is not developed exclusively to solve a specific problem 
- or set of problems - of the end user but instead can be directly 
associated with a public political ideal/agenda/joke/statement/whatever 
visible by those interested in the software, then the software is a 
political tool made to exploit the free software community and you 
should avoid it.

Then, the decision whether to accept the software (which must obviously 
be totally free/libre foremost) depends on how wise and ethically 
correct the administration wants to be: it is all nice and happy until 
the winds of politics change and go against what you naively accepted 
before. Be smart, steer away from politics, prevent problems.

Administering a public website always means offering a service to all 
visitors and that requires proper selection of the published contents. 
If some users - and, most important, their governments - might be 
offended or damaged by a certain political application, better be wise 
and avoid it, because it is not really free software and consequently 
does not deserve to be listed.

You should not quibble to find an excuse for accepting a software which 
is obviously political only because it attracts attention or because 
apparently no alternative exists. The FSD is not forced to accept a 
software only because it is trending or because there is no alternative, 
its purpose is to list only software which truly is free.

Temptation is strong, but developing free software means doing the good 
of the many, a purpose which goes beyond politics and shall not be 
tainted by it.

Farewell,
Lorenzo

Il 17/09/21 23:15, quiliro@riseup.net ha scritto:
> "Lorenzo L. Ancora" via <directory-discuss@gnu.org> writes:
> > If an FSD administrator wants to reject a software he/she must also
> > add a valid motivation in the edit summary and that means explaining
> > the specific reason for deletion. Nobody's going to reject a software
> > on suspicion, approval can be delayed but at the end the FSD only
> > approves edits based on facts (and this is a good thing for everyone).
>
> Here is my view about this ordeal.  Please consider it in order to
> continue in a productive way.
>
> There is no such uniquely definition of the word _fact_ unless it is on
> the terms of all the parties involved, and not even then.  This whole
> discussion is based on the assumption that the definitions of one person
> should be accepted by the rest.  It would be more productive to
> establish acceptance of the other people's definitions without adopting
> them.  Then we could create consensus on what is each definition on
> common terms.  Only after that, we can propose what to do to others.
> Telling others what to do is certainly not a productive to anyone.  Or
> is it?
>
> Something additional to consider is that logical positions are merely
> justifications for previously underlying feelings pushing towards a
> certain attitude.  That is the way the unconscious works according to
> psychologists.
>
> Warm greetings,
>
> Quiliro

--
All messages from/to this account should be considered private.
Messages from/to newsletters should not be reshared.
TZ: Europe/Rome (Italy - CEST).

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature