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.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”.

  •  debanqued   ( @debanqued@beehaw.org ) OP
    1•7 months ago

    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.