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)
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.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 egalitarian principles & rights are a minimum low bar to set that cannot be construed as “unreasonable” or “purist” or “extremist”.
Those might look like freedom pitfalls but are actually not. On the one hand gitlab dot com is not really bad for freedom as it has at least an open core and is very freedom friendly. Gitlab can be easily circumvented by using got client directly. Maybe a tag could be helpful here.
Any way, just clearing cookies after closing the session is very enough for github.
Cloudflare? Why are you even mentioning this? This is part of projects infrastructure. We need to draw a line somewhere. For example would you visit a website if it was hosted on Windows server? If they use ESXi? Or if user account are managed with Active Directory or firebase?
Sure you are free to be as eclectic as you want, but at the end, those are very minor issues that do not dent FSF credibility. Remember it stand for Free software first.
Edit: typos
For example would you visit a website if it was hosted on Windows server? If they use ESXi? Or if user account are managed with Active Directory or firebase?
I’ve known people who were absolutely like this, who wouldn’t use a site/service/etc. because it wasn’t on a 100% FOSS stack. It’s tiresome.
I’m all for open source, open standards, being able to modify and share the tools you use, etc. But people like that are extremists who seem to go out of their way to undermine their own credibility and message.
For example would you visit a website if it was hosted on Windows server?
It depends on how it is hosted. Is Tor blocked, thus forcing me to reveal metadata that identifies me to MS in order to reach the resource? If yes, then no, I would walk. Is it enshitified with popups & CAPTCHAs? If yes, then no. It comes down to what information must I share with who and what hoops do I have to go through.
If the website is sufficiently usable without unreasonable data compromise, then the mere fact that MS is in the supply chain would not stop me using it. This is only due to global lack of social advancement. That is, when we are up to our necks in garbage, who we choose to support (and to what extent) is relative. If Cloudflare did not exist and the communities being marginalized by CF were liberated, then there would be a theoretical point where a 100% boycott on all things Microsoft would be sensible. ATM, we’re not even close to that degree of progress where picking that battle would be wise.
I’ve known people who were absolutely like this, who wouldn’t use a site/service/etc. because it wasn’t on a 100% FOSS stack. It’s tiresome.
It’s tiresome that exclusivity & enshitification persists on such a huge scale which encumbers people on a daily basis because there are so many pushovers feeding & pushing shitty websites. The digital rights movements are starving for more people with integrity.
I’m all for open source, open standards, being able to modify and share the tools you use, etc. But people like that are extremists who seem to go out of their way to undermine their own credibility and message.
It’s the hypocrisy of not practicing what you preach that undermines one’s own credibility and the digital rights mission. Quite perverse to claim the contrary— that adherence to one’s own ideology in practice would “undermine their own credibility and message.” It’s tiresome to see digital rights activists needlessly using contradictory tech that’s antithetical to the purpose they claim to support.
For example would you visit a website if it was hosted on Windows server? If they use ESXi? Or if user account are managed with Active Directory or firebase?
No, and I visit cloudfare websites too.
But I still agree with everything OP says. Like the warnings in the F-Droid android app store informing users that an app promotes non-free services, but it doesn’t stop me, or anyone else, from installing them. I simply think people should be informed that services are less free than they can be, and made aware of the many risks that come with non-free services. It’s an idealist stance, a goal to push our reality towards, rather than a way of life for most (those who treat it like a way of life are very, very rare).
But this is a false analogy anyways. Windows servers aren’t banning users behind tor, or cgnat for no apparent reason like cloudfare is. I think we should discourage the use of nonfree services, but it’s not a yes/no binary. Certain things are more free than others, and we should encourage people to choose the freer option. Cloudfare tunneling a linux service is more free than hosting your website using vendor locked cloud tech (AWS s3, lambda, dns, etc). Hosting your won website on an windows server is still not free, but arguably more free than vendor locked cloud stuff. Linux deployments using only FOSS is arguably the most free software you can get, but you still have to deal with nonfree hardware and drivers.
I still use GitHub. But I hate that it has no ipv6 connectivity, meaning that those who don’t have ipv4 are excluded, and it’s absolutely unacceptable for a tech company of all things, to not keep up to date. The moment federation gets added to forgejo or another one of the self hostable git forges, I will switch (but probably mirror stuff for recruiter purposes), since that’s more inclusive than github, but right now, they are not more inclusive than github because instances are small and do not interoperate.
Those mught look like freedom pitfalls but are actually not. On the one hand gitlab dot com is not reaaly bad for freedom as it has at least an open core and is very freedom friendly.
You’re conflating a specific instance (the flagship one) with the software it uses, and also neglecting that it runs a non-free enterprise-licensed package, not free s/w. SaaS ≠ software. This particular instance scores poorly by FSF’s own freedom criteria.
There are FOSS-based Gitlab community repos which have no notable freedom issues, but these are not what my comment refers to. The Gitlab CE instances would not need an anti-feature tag. But Gitlab dot com does.
Cloudflare? Why are you even mentioning this?
Restricted-access docs exclude people and also violates the Free Documentation License.
Remember it stand for Free software first.
Software as a service was rightfully cautioned by RMS himself and it is well inside the purview of FSF which has published various essays on the topic.
Going way overboard to the point of being pure is one of the biggest issues the FSF has in terms of relevance and your suggesting they go further down the rabbit hole. It is better to direct people to good FOSS they can and will use then some imagined pure breed that no one will ever use. It is better to have a big tent then a miniscule one too.
Do I like github. Not really. For that matter do I like git… No. Biggest issue with github is that it mixes FOSS and non-FOSS and even worse not all projects have clear licensing.
As far as Cloudflair… they are a CDN. relax. Nothing is locked there. Nothing is locked to source hosting either. Just pull the source.
As far as Cloudflair… they are a CDN. relax. Nothing is locked there
Nonsense. Cloudflare (a proxy not a CDN) is exclusive. People like myself are in the excluded group. If Cloudflare gives you no problems personally, then you are in the included group. It’s designed so those excluded are invisible to the included group. You can only see the barriers to entry if you are actually excluded.
To be fair, if the free software “hardliners” like the FSF soften their stance, then that “hardline” just shifts. If nobody maintains that stance the strongest libre software principles will become weaker, if that makes sense.
The FSF is very useful for preventing that, even if they’re not quite as big as softer movements like “Open Source”
Going way overboard to the point of being pure is one of the biggest issues the FSF has in terms of relevance and your suggesting they go further down the rabbit hole.
Framing inclusion of all people as a “purist” agenda is a bit rich. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t say it’s okay to deny equal access to some people. for example. And we don’t call the UDHR “purist” or extremist for being all inclusive. Being inclusive is where the bar should be set. It’s achievable and there are some projects that prove that.
It is better to direct people to good FOSS they can and will use then some imagined pure breed that no one will ever use.
You’re not grounded in reality. Tagging anti-features does not lead to “some imagined pure breed that no one will ever use.” Nor would anyone avoid listings which have no anti-feature tags. It’s the contrary. Projects that lack anti-features are superficially attractive.
Biggest issue with github is that it mixes FOSS and non-FOSS and even worse not all projects have clear licensing.
That is not the biggest issue with Github. Github is exclusive, feeds copilot, feeds a company that’s antithetical to the FSF mission, among other issues that were listed in the OP.
So you’re suggesting they remove or tag 99% of projects from the directory because you don’t like where they put their source code? Seriously?
If you really don’t like it, use the git command line to access it… It’s just the server where the code is hosted…
And no, you don’t need an access token to clone a repo.
Yes these sites are bad, no it doesn’t warrant tarring the projects hosted on them.
Personally I would have some sort of notice regarding these on affected projects, but I don’t think it’s enough to warrant slapping an anti-feature flag on them just because of the author’s choice of code respoitory hosting provider or CDN.
You can git pull those repos fully with free software. Only contributions are locked away, but it is the directory of free software programs you can download and use.
Should users be able to see bug reports?
Just tried to see the bug reports for a gitlab·com project. This is what I get:
Being able to see bug reports is not required to use the software. You’ve made the decision to block Cloudflare, so now you face the consequences of not being able to access certain websites. 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.
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.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 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.
