this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2026
33 points (80.0% liked)

Linux

13051 readers
845 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ategon@programming.dev
anzo@programming.dev
dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev
33
"FOSS" and "GNU Linux" do not automatically mean "for the community" or "for human rights" (lemmy.ca)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by pglpm@lemmy.ca to c/linux@programming.dev
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The ongoing discussions about age-verification and changes in Free and Open-Source Software and GNU Linux and related OSs made me realize a gross misunderstanding on my part. I think many other users may have the same misunderstanding (seeing many comments using the word "traitors"), and it's important that we become aware of it. We must understand that using or saying “FOSS” or “Linux” does not automatically mean to stand up for human rights, for the community, against corporations, and similar goals and values.

If we read the comments in those age-verification discussions we can see that many developers and possibly also users make statements like “the developers have no obligation towards the community”, “the law is the law, no matter what the community wants”, “we must comply”, and similar. It’s important to realize that many developers work on FOSS not out of consideration for the community, or for human rights, or against corporations. For them it’s just one kind of software development. We may have projects that are FOSS and pro-corporations or pro-surveillance. The "F" in FOSS stands for freedom to modify and distribute the software by/to anyone in the community. It doesn’t stand for “software that promotes / stands up for general human freedom and human rights". But of course there are also developers that work with FOSS because of such values.

So for anyone who, like me, wants to use and promote software as an assertion of, and a stand for, human rights and against corporations, it’s necessary not to stop at “FOSS” or “Linux” but apply more scrutiny and more careful choices. Probably it's always been like this, but the present times require extra awareness.

I wish there was an acronym or other word that made this moral aspect of some FOSS development clear. This would help users to recognize software projects that share their values, and also those FOSS developers who do work for those values. Is there such a term already out there?

top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 32 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The problem is that "human freedom" and "human rights" are very general and somewhat vague terms and some people's freedoms and rights are sometimes in conflict with each other. So it's also often meaningless to say that you support "human freedom" and "human rights" without asking what freedoms and rights and for whom.

FOSS is a very specific subset of human freedom and human rights, it's the right to control, modify and distribute the software one uses. All other parts of human freedom and human rights aren't something that the free software movement necessarily has a position on. (Free software can certainly be used to, at least arguably, violate human rights, for example armed forces can use free software too, and should be able to!)

[–] TwilightKiddy@programming.dev 15 points 2 days ago

FOSS projects tend to be nice with their communities because if you piss off enough tech savvy people, your project just gets forked. Sooner or later there is a fork that everybody will recommend instead of the original project.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 10 points 2 days ago

I feel "Free Software" is the closest we get. As that is associated with the Free Software movement and copyleft. In reality, we're talking more about freedom of opportunity, though. We're not really owed software that fits our use-case 100%, that's not the kind of freedom we're talking about.

[–] luciole@beehaw.org 9 points 2 days ago

FOSS provides a way to exercise digital freedom in a digitalized world.

For example the Canadian Charter of Rights considers these freedoms fundamental:

  • freedom of conscience and religion;
  • freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
  • freedom of peaceful assembly; and
  • freedom of association.

These can all be threatened through centralized, authoritarian digital mechanisms.

While FOSS can be used to oppress, FOSS is most importantly a useful tool to fight against oppression by escaping control and as such it is precious today.

[–] illusionist@lemmy.zip -5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

Imo, "being against corporations" doesn't make sense in this regard unless you are very very far left and think that there should be no private property at all.

Edit:

In short: do you want to add labels to software to indicate

  • pro human rights
  • being against corporations

How can software be pro human rights?

What's your problem with corporations, in case you really think that there should be no property?

[–] Rekall_Incorporated@piefed.social 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I disagree. You don't have to be far left to oppose oligarchy, corruption and crime.

[–] ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Dig deep enough, read some history? And many on the Far Left contend that you do need to oppose things like Capitalism to oppose Oligarchy.

I'm no Marxist, but his observations on consolidation bear out. From that consolidation, we get oligarchy. From that oligarchy we get corruption and the worst sort of Epstein crimes imaginable. And it all reinforces each other.

What if we all decided together that the people who own Walmart and Amazon are the people who work there, instead of some parasites that sucked out enough wealth to never be able to spend it all for generations?

[–] aReallyCrunchyLeaf@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I’m no Marxist

the people who own Walmart and Amazon are the people who work there

Friend, may I introduce you to a little something known as "Dictatorship of the Proletariat?"

[–] ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 hours ago

Yeah, I'm not really into "dictatorship" of any sort. Y'all need to update your language to contemporary English.

[–] luciole@beehaw.org 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Corporations are the opposite of private property and that's the problem. Their modern form was born in 19th century imperialist England and conviently evacuates all responsibility into the black void that is a moral entity or whatever that's called. The ownership is zombified into a creature hungry for nothing but abstract profit, everything else be damned. I trust many businesses, but never a corporation.

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

A business is something owned and run by a real human, who may be an evil person but is still at least a person that can potentially be reasoned with and can suffer consequences for their actions. Sociopathic business owners absolutely do exist and are a real concern, but they are a manageable one, at least theoretically, at least when the entire system isn't stacked in favor of them.

As you say, corporations are different (and they are a significant part of the reason the economy is stacked in favor of sociopaths instead of against them). They are only nominally run by a human, and typically only in a temporally limited or some other limited capacity. A corporation is owned by its shareholders, an anonymous, nameless, faceless mob of pitchforks and torches, a group that is constantly shifting, amorphous and fluid, impossible to solidify into anything that can be pinned down, typically mostly represented by bankers, fund managers and balance sheets that want to look good for their eventual consumer so they can sell financial products to them. They are inherently amoral, and like any mob can quickly turn from vicious to apathetic and back again at the prompting of single individual acts or actors without any logical reason. The sociopaths on the other hand can easily take advantage of this, becoming the single actor or creating the single act to incite the mobs to riot or soothe them into complacency almost at will, and as a result, they control the corporations, and thus the economy.

[–] pglpm@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Regarding "pro human rights", what I mean is that software development can be (for some) a form of activism for human rights, just like it happens in the arts and in science.

[–] firelizzard@programming.dev 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Are you saying you don’t support FOSS projects that aren’t willing to engage in activism? A lot of us are morally aligned with you but aren’t willing to die on that hill. I think this age verification stuff is utter bullshit but if I were a maintainer of a project that was likely to be the target of one of these laws I would not be willing to put my livelihood on the line. Shaming people who are volunteering their time for being unwilling to endanger their livelihoods is pretty entitled IMO.

[–] pglpm@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yes I don't support FOSS projects that aren't willing to engage in activism. But I don't shame them. That's exactly the point of my post. Rather than shaming people or projects who've made a different choice, I think it's best to find and focus on those who share one's choice, for mutual support, discussion, and planning. It's important to understand that FOSS and activism are two different things.

[–] firelizzard@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So… are you using nothing but FOSS from activist projects? That doesn’t seem like a big pool, from what I’ve seen. Or do you mean support as in with your time and/or money?

[–] pglpm@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

I have only partially until now. But sadly it looks like we're entering times where choices regarding activism will become more important and inevitable. The pool with get larger. Any kind of support: money, time, developing, participating, promoting, legal...

[–] pglpm@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Agreed, there's a whole spectrum. On my part I'd more properly say against giving too much power to corporations.

[–] illusionist@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

What do you mean by giving too much power to corporations?