cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/8984968
The #FSD purpose is to help people “find freedom-respecting programs”. Browsing the directory reveals copious freedom-disrespecting resources. For example:
- projects jailed in MS #Github (amid substantial ethical issues)
- projects jailed in #Gitlab·com (amid substantial ethical issues)
- projects with resources (docs, forums, wikis, APIs, etc) that are jailed in #Cloudflare’s walled garden (amid substantial ethical issues)
FSF has no tags for these anti-features. It suggests a problem with integrity and credibility. People expect to be able to trust FSF as an org that prioritizes user freedom. Presenting this directory with unmarked freedom pitfalls sends the wrong message & risks compromising trust and transparency. Transparency is critical to the FOSS ideology. Why not clearly mark the freedom pitfalls?
UPDATE
The idea of having exclusive clubs with gatekeepers is inconsistent with FSF’s most basic principles, specifically:
All important site functionality that's enabled for use with that package works correctly (though it need not look as nice) in free browsers, including IceCat, without running any nonfree software sent by the site. (C0)Does not discriminate against classes of users, or against any country. (C2)Permits access via Tor (we consider this an important site function). (C3)If Cloudflare links in the #FSF FSD are replaced with archive.org mirrors, that avoids a bulk of the exclusivity. It also automatically invokes the Library Bill of Rights (LBR) because #InternetArchive is an #ALA member:
V. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.VII. All people, regardless of origin, age, background, or views, possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use. Libraries should advocate for, educate about, and protect people’s privacy, safeguarding all library use data, including personally identifiable information.The LBR is consistent with FSF’s principles so this is naturally a good solution. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights are also noteworthy. Even if the FSD is technically not a public service, the public uses it and FSF is an IRS-qualified 501©(3) public charity, likely making it public enough to observe these UDHR clauses:
art.21 ¶2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.art.27 ¶1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.These fundamental principles & rights are a minimum low bar to set that cannot be construed as “not reasonable” or “purist” or “extremist”.
It’s a good suggestion to have them tag anti features.
I’m glad the directory exists, even as is, let’s not let perfection get in the way of good enough.
the title of the post is a bit click-baity. they are doing good work, and not being excellent in everything, is not really the same as misdirection
The premise is click-baity. Nothing is “jailed” in github/gitlab, you can leave any time. It might cost you some time to re-setup the project, but the code can be cloned/forked/downloaded at any time.
This is just brainless paranoia, that acheives nothing.
Nothing is “jailed” in github/gitlab, you can leave any time.
Jailed does not merely mean inability to leave. A walled garden means entry is exclusive. Some people are blocked from entry and participation. Some people cannot file bug reports. Spotlighting exclusion of people and exposing deviations from FSF principles is not “paranoia”. Blocking people based on national origin is also a human rights violation.
click-baity
Nonsense. The title describes the problem outlined in the body. It’s precisely the thesis of the post.