Free Software

!sambasoftware@lemmy.sdf.org

This is a community to discuss and to get support for Samba and related projects

So I have noticed that we have problem in the Android development space. We have a library of free apps on F-droid and other places which is great but I have noticed that we do not seem to have a free up to date build of the Android SDK. I do not know why but we should look to change that.

Historically there were builds from Beuc. However, those builds are no longer available. There are builds from Replicant android but those are built from code that is from 2013. We are right now lacking publicly available premade builds. I believe you can still build from source but the documentation to do that is all a bit dated so it would be a challenge.

I wanted to create this post as we need to create awareness about free software issues. We all take F-droid for granted but creating ethical apps is hard. The SDK is just one piece of a large puzzle.

Recently I have been playing around with ollama and some of the models. With OpenwebUI+ollama you can have a free software self hosted LLM for personal or professional use.

However, when I was browsing some of the models I couldn't help but notice that some of the licenses were contrary to free software. The free software models seem to be mostly licensed under Apache but models like Google Gemmi are under a custom license that restricts what you can do among other things. This seems like the opposite of free software and free software ideas.

What I think needs to happen is that we need to come up with some free LLM licensing for the community. This would also allow companies to publish free models with some certainty about the legality.

The other question is what actually counts as "source code" for a LLM. For copy left licensing the idea is that anyone can edit and distribute the sources but for a language model the source is not really clear.

What do you guys think? Let's get a discussion going as like it or not, LLMs are here to stay.

As the mod of this community I'm trying to figure out the future of how I want this community to work. Some of you may of noticed that I have created a new set of rules for this community. I tried to be fairly laid back but I explicitly prohibited a few things in order to keep this community on topic and out of liability. I don't believe any of the new policies to be controversial but if you disagree with them please comment and let me know.

As for the future of the community I would like to try and get some more activity and discussion. I'm thinking about organizing a Q&A with someone in the community but I don't know who people would be interested in. This is all tentative so I'm not making any commitments. If you have any ideas comment below.

As for the free software wiki, it didn't get a lot of comments so I assume there is not a lot of interest. It would be a lot more work for me so I don't feel particularly motivated to start it. In all fairness there is a lot of information about free software online so maybe there is no need for a wiki.

To sum it all up I am pretty happy with how this community is slowly growing but I think we have lots of room for potential. I created the rules as a fallback for controversy and I've only had to remove one post so far.

\* Linux on Chromebooks may not be fully Libre

So I am thinking about creating a free software wiki that's is a central source for information relating to free software. It would also cover things like Linux, self hosting and free software in different industries and use cases.

I'm still thinking about how this could work but I've came to the conclusion that the wiki would need the following:

• It would need to easy to contribute to without too much knowledge
• It should cover individual software programs as well as more general topics
• There should be templates for the different types of pages
• A sources and further reading list needs to be at the bottom of each page. Information in the wiki should have at least one outside source to keep the information factual
• when a person creates a page they should have real world experience with that software or topic
• There should be a heading called concerns or something similar where potential moral or technical downsides can be listed
• It shouldn't be persuasive or written to change opinions
• It should be in English at least to start
• It should have content about other non-free operating systems and how to make them a little more free

Things that need to be figured out:

• The software or service
• the domain
• content organization (by operating system?)

What's your thoughts on this? I would be interested to know

Today we have even more good reading material for the weekend - best enjoyed in the sun ☀️🌦️ : On #ILoveFreeSoftware-Day last Wednesday, the research project REGALE\_EU interviewed researchers Bruno Raffin from Inria and Frederico Tesser from CINECA on the topic - it's really exciting. Read in, enjoy it: https://regale-project.eu/?p=576

\#freesoftware, #opensourcesoftware, #opensience, #IT4science, #discoverLRZ

@freesoftware@friendicarg.nsupdate.info , @fsfe , @freesoftware@lemmy.zip , @opensourcenet @opensourcefeed

I found this post about an "open-source" coding assistant called Tabby: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/13830988

I can't comment there, because I guess my instance is defederated from them. But I've noticed something in the license that made me think it might be proprietary software:

>This software and associated documentation files (the "Software") may only be used in production, if you (and any entity that you represent) have agreed to, and are in compliance with, the Tabby Subscription Terms of Service, available at https://tabby.tabbyml.com/terms (the “Enterprise Terms”), or other agreement governing the use of the Software, as agreed by you and TabbyML, and otherwise have a valid Tabby Enterprise license for the correct number of user seats. Subject to the foregoing sentence, you are free to modify this Software and publish patches to the Software. You agree that TabbyML and/or its licensors (as applicable) retain all right, title and interest in and to all such modifications and/or patches, and all such modifications and/or patches may only be used, copied, modified, displayed, distributed, or otherwise exploited with a valid Tabby Enterprise license for the correct number of user seats. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may copy and modify the Software for development and testing purposes, without requiring a subscription. You agree that Tabby and/or its licensors (as applicable) retain all right, title and interest in and to all such modifications. You are not granted any other rights beyond what is expressly stated herein. Subject to the foregoing, it is forbidden to copy, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell the Software.

https://github.com/TabbyML/tabby/blob/main/ee/LICENSE

What do you think? It seems to me that this is a huge restriction on user's 4 essential freedoms.

I recently contacted Onn to get the source code for the Onn 4k TV box. We will see how long it takes me to get the code. The last contact I received was the support person telling me that the device is out of support even though it was released less than a year ago.

I already contacted the FSF and SFC so we'll see where we go from here. What experiences have you had with getting GPL source code?

I've been thinking about this for a while now.

Richard Stallman has been practically synonymous with Free Software since its inception. And there are good reasons why. It was his idea, and it was his passion that made the movement what it is today.

I deeply believe in the mission of the Free Software movement. But more and more, it seems that in order to survive, the Free Software movement may need to distance itself from him.

Richard Stallman has said some really disturbingly reprehensible things on multiple occasions (one and two). (He has said he's changed these opinions, but it seems to me the damage is done.)

He's asked that people blame him and not the FSF for these statements, but it seems naive to me to expect that to be enough not to tarnish the FSF's reputation in the eyes of most people.

And Richard Stallman isn't the only problematic figure associated with the Free Software movement.. Eben Moglen (founder, Direct-Council, and Chairman of Software Freedom Law Center which is closely associated with the FSF) has been accused of much abusive and anti-LGBTQIA+ behavior over which the Free Software Foundation Europe and Software Freedom Concervancy have cut ties with the SFLC and Moglen (one and two).

Even aside from the public image problems, it seems like the FSF and SFLC have been holding back the Free Software movement strategically. Eben Moglan has long been adamant that the GPL shouldn't be interpreted as a contract -- only as a copyright license. What the SFC is doing now with the Visio lawsuit is only possible because the SFC had the courage to abandon that theory.

I sense there's a rift in the Free Software movement. Especially given that the SFC and FSF Europe explicitly cutting ties with the SFLC and Moglen. And individual supporters of Free Software are going to have to decide which parties in this split are going to speak for and champion the cause of the community as a whole.

I imagine it's pretty clear by this point that I favor the SFC in this split. I like what I've seen from the SFC in general. Not just the Visio lawsuit. But also the things I've heard said by SFC folks.

If the Free Software movement needs a single personality to be its face moving forward, I'd love for that face to be Bradley M. Kuhn, executive director of the SFC. He seems to have all of Stallman's and Moglen's assets (passion, dedication, an unwillingness to bend, and experience and knowledge of the legal aspects of Free Software enforcement) perhaps even more so than Stallman and Moglen do. And Kuhn excels in all the areas where Stallman and Moglen perhaps don't so much (social consciousness, likeability, strategy.) I can't say enough good things about Kuhn, really. (And his Wikipedia page doesn't even have a "controversies" section.) (Also, please tell me there aren't any skeletons in his closet.)

Even if the community does come to a consensus that the movement should distance itself from Stallman and Moglen, it'll be difficult to achieve such a change in public perception and if it's achieved, it may come at a cost. After all, Stallman is the first person everybody pictures when the FSF is mentioned. And acknowledging the problems with the Free Software movement's "old brass" may damage the reputation of Free Software as a whole among those who might not differentiate between the parties in this split. But I feel it may be necessary for the future of the Free Software movement.

That's my take, anyway. I'll hop down off of my soap box, now. But I wanted to bring this up, hopefully let some folks whose ideals align with those of the Free Software movement about all this if they weren't already aware, and maybe see what folks in general think about the future of the Free Software movement.

Spoiler: yes

Does anyone own a Linux cell phone and use it as a daily driver?

There are a few out there, was just curious if anyone has one, and how good it works on a day to day basis.

~~~~

cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/8984968

> 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) > > If Cloudflare links in the #FSF FSD are replaced with archive.org mirrors, that avoids a bulk of the exclusivity. It also automatically invokes the Library Bill of Rights (LBR) because #InternetArchive is an #ALA member: > > * 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 naturally a good solution. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights are 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, likely 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 principles & rights are a minimum low bar to set that cannot be construed as “not reasonable” or “purist” or “extremist”.