The #FSD purpose is to help people “find freedom-respecting programs”. Browsing the directory reveals copious freedom-disrespecting resources. For example:

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)

Failing any of those earns an “F” grade (Github & gitlab·com both fail).

If Cloudflare links in the #FSF FSD are replaced with archive.org mirrors, that avoids a bulk of the exclusivity. #InternetArchive’s #ALA membership automatically invokes the Library Bill of Rights (LBR), which includes:

  • 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 a naturally fitting solution. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also noteworthy. Even if the FSD is technically not a public service, the public uses it and FSF is an IRS-qualified 501(c)(3) public charity, making it public enough to observe these UDHR clauses:

  • art.212. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
  • art.271. 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 egalitarian principles & rights are a minimum low bar to set that cannot be construed as “unreasonable” or “purist” or “extremist”.

  • debanqued@beehaw.orgOP
    2·
    1 year ago

    Being able to see bug reports is not required to use the software.

    That doesn’t quite answer the question. Nor is it strictly true. Bug tracker info is rich in workarounds for problems that hinder the use of the software.

    You’ve made the decision to block Cloudflare,

    Cloudflare’s decision, not mine. Cloudflare along with projects that use it made the (often unwitting) decision to block me, among other excluded people. Could I have executed Cloudflare’s non-free javascript to use the website, which is pushed contrary to FSF criteria C0? Perhaps, I didn’t try. Though I’ve run their garbage in the past and found that it rarely works anyway because the CAPTCHA servers themselves tend to be tor-hostile.

    It’s worth noting that when execution of JavaScript of any kind is imposed in order to obtain information, it’s not a document; it’s an application.

    Expecting free software developers to ensure that every single part of the experience is seamless for users who decide to block certain services is not reasonable.

    Expecting FSF to facilitate exclusion of free software documentation and resources (the status quo) is not reasonable.

    What is reasonable is FSF supporting their own principles:

    • 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)

    The Library Bill of Rights (LBR) is also quite reasonable:

    • 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 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also reasonable:

    • art.212. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
    • art.271. 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 are good ideas. These fundamental principles & rights are a minimum low bar to set that cannot be construed as “not reasonable.”

    If Cloudflare links in the #FSF #FSD are replaced with archive.org mirrors, that automatically invokes the Library Bill of Rights (as InternetArchive is an ALA member). The LBR is also consistent with FSF’s principles.