Let me just be more explicit: if your software cannot be used by nazis then your software is not free software.

This is not the correct place to fight hate speech. Block the instances. Report hate speech to the authorities. Settle it using the existing legal frameworks to do so, and if they are insufficient, then write to your lawmakers.

But if you support free software, it is not the place to address this issue, by definition.

@sir The devs could also remove the concrete domain from the repo and only add it as part of their release process (together with their private key that authenticates a binary with the store), so that only the build in the store is affected. Would that be more acceptable to you?

Also: Nazis (and everybody else) can still use the software: git clone, remove the XML entry from the list, build and install it. They can even redistribute or sell the build result (as long as they accompany it with an offer for the source code).

@patrick no, I would have the same problem with that. I also understand the change and the ways it can be worked around.

Let me repost my earlier comment for your consideration as well: "If you prevent nazis from using your software to access gab, then they'll use your software to access another instance. One that you haven't blocked yet"

@sir @patrick Just because someone is able to break though a window, doesn't mean closing the door is useless. It raises the bar, makes it more serious, stops the bottom 95% of lazy people who would steal from an open house.

Physical safety of actual people is more important than adhering to a made up license. We should change the license if it means protecting ourselves.

@deltaidea @patrick how will adding a "nazis can't use this" clause to your software protect people's "physical safety?" Nazis are going to use your software even if you tell them not to. And if you think an anti-nazi clause is going to be defendable in court, I have some bad news for you. So if you fail to alienate nazis with an anti-nazi clause, and you succeed in alienating free software enthusiasts (because your software isn't), then what have you really accomplished other than a moral platitude?

Note I'm not extending this to the Tusky discussion, but specifically refuting your points about dropping/changing free software licenses because they don't exclude nazis

Follow

@sir @patrick This doesn't translate well to stuff like libraries, you're right that it works best with services where the developer controls access.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
social.coop

social.coop is a cooperatively-run corner of the Fediverse. The instance is democratically governed by its members, who generally share an interest in the co-op model, but topics of discussion range widely.

If you are interested in joining our community, please review our Bylaws and Code of Conduct. If you agree with them, you may apply for membership on our instance via this link

Our instance is supported by sliding scale contributions of $1-10/mo made via Open Collective. You must have an active Open Collective account to apply for membership; you may set one up here