Re: About SWH, let avoid the wrong discussion

[Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6790 bytes --]

On 2024-06-21, MSavoritias wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:51:30 -0700
> Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-06-21, MSavoritias wrote:
>> > On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:46:56 +0200
>> > Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> wrote:  
>> >> Am Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 12:12:13PM +0300 schrieb MSavoritias:  
>> >> > and as I mention in my first email I want to apply social pressure and make it clear to package authors what is happening so we can move to an opt-in model.    
>> >> 
>> >> Well, the opt-in model is in place: As soon as I put my code under a free
>> >> license on the Internet, I opt in for it to be harvested by SWH (and anybody
>> >> else, including non-friendly companies and state actors).  
>> >
>> > That may be how you have understood it but that is not how most people understand it.
>> > See for example mirroring videos that creators have made online, or more recently some activitypub software harvesting posts for a search engine.  
>> 
>> I think the fundamental difference is that such videos or activitypub
>> posts are not necessarily released under a license that *expressly*
>> permits sharing.
>> 
>> In most cases, those posts and videos are often released without any
>> license at all, and the person retains the legal, social, moral and
>> ethical rights to decide how that content is shared if at all. (I am
>> speaking with those terms in the "plain" english sense, although they
>> may have specific legal meanings in some contexts)
>
> Its not actually. License doesn't matter to fediverse communities (I am talking ones that are part of the BadSpace here)
> It is a social issue and treat accordinly. As in defederate (dont assosiate) with people who dont respect your community rules.
> Laws, and licenses have nothing to do with it.

What is a license other than an explicit set of community rules
pertaining to the community around which that license is relevent
(e.g. a specific piece of software)?

When people break community rules, there may be consequences... and
whatever relevent community figures out what to do about it, with
whatever explicit or ad-hoc process they have at hand... some of those
methods work out better than others.

I see no notable difference with the way the fediverse works; people or
communities choose to associate or disassociate from other people or
communities when a common set of norms cannot be established. If you
repeatedly or severely break the rules (a.k.a. laws) of a particular
community, you probably will no longer be welcome in that community.


>> With something released under a Free Software license, calling someone
>> an "asshole" simply for using the permissions granted by that license,
>> by the very person who granted those permissions, starts to feel a bit
>> like a baited trap and honestly, maybe outright duplicitous. Certainly
>> rude, at the very least.
>> 
>> Again, that is different from some arbitrary post or video or cat
>> picture on the internet, which more likely than not has no explicit
>> permissions granted.
>
> See about fediverse again. Its understood socially to be a bad thing not legally.
> Because after all mostly nobody has the time and money for state laws to work.

If I tell you "go ahead and do X with this cool thing I made, as long as
you respect Y, forever, honest" and then you say "stop doing X now, I
take it back because Z" ... that might come across as socially
inappropriate weather there are laws involved or not; the law is
irrelevent as far as I am concerned.

Of course, context matters; maybe Z is something nobody had ever thought
of before, and it is a surprise to everyone... and maybe even pretty
undesireable. Maybe Z is a pretty arbitrary whim... and everything
in-between. Maybe, just maybe, there is a big ambiguous grey area or
even a gray area...

A license is just a social arrangement, a codified set of social rules,
promises and expectations, just because it has some codified legal
enforcement mechanism does not change that. Obviously, due to systematic
power imbalances, it is probably different than breaking a promise to
meet someone for a picnic tomorrow afternoon.


>> > TBH it seems you are not the only one in this thread not knowing that laws (legal rules of states) ie. the FSF licenses and work and whatever, are not the same as social rules.
>> > But given that Guix has a CoC and social rules on top of that I am hopeful :)  
>> 
>> Well... free software ... is a bunch of social rules. Licenses are
>> social rules. Contracts are social rules. Laws are social
>> rules. Admittedly, a lot of the mechanics involved in law creation and
>> enforcement are dubious and suspect and weighted in the favor large,
>> wealthy and/or otherwise powerful entities...
>> 
>> I am not sure arguing about social vs. legal vs. whatever is even really
>> a useful direction... almost missing the point entirely.
>> 
>> I would rather ask... what is the intention of the Free Software
>> movement?
>> 
>> The licenses are merely imperfect tools to achieve those aims, and a
>> clever way to leverage some specific legal mechanisms, but the licenses
>> are not an end unto themselves.
>> 
>> For me personally, it is about creating a shared commons that can be
>> used to build healthy thriving local, regional, global and virtual
>> communities that do useful or interesting things... I dare dream that
>> some of those collaboration skills leak into other aspects of life too,
>> not just software!
>
> That is all well and good but sadly Free Software says nothing about
> social rules.  For example what is Guix supposed to do when racists
> come in the chat?  or what if there is a hostile fork with the same
> name and submits itself for Guix inclusion?  or what if like a few
> months ago you have a trans person saying in the mailing list that you
> deadnamed them? Do we not change the software even if FSF free
> software says we can do whatever we want?
>
> I doubt the last case would go well with a lot of people in the Guix
> community.  These are just some examples that Free Software can't
> solve for better or for worse. So it is up to social rules to decide
> what to do.

Sure, this is why we have a whole toolbox with things like a code of
conduct, documentation, and mailing lists to discuss and hash these
things out when something unforseen comes up...


> That is to say I agree we need collaboration and shared commons and
> such. But to create said collaborations we need to create safe spaces,
> protect people, value consent.

I agree, though still might come to different conclusions (or lack
thereof) about how exactly to achieve that.


live well,
  vagrant

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]