"Software should be free. The people... not so much"

@Gargron clearly unethical, but isn't his point that GNU's ethical mission has a limited scope (namely, software freedom, copyright, user privacy, etc)?

If you filtered source code contributions along every single moral dimension, you would end up with pretty much nothing at the intersection.

Think of all the scientific discoveries and tech invented by horrible people or horrible regimes. What matters to scientists is that the science is good. Historians and tribunals can judge the rest.

@Gargron When people grow up a bit - and it doesn't take most people very long! - they learn not to answer contorted convoluted hypothetical questions like that. You're always going to get less grief by refusing to answer than by trying to contort yourself to fit the question.

HMRC is a classic example of this. If you ask them "what would happen if I do X" the answer will always be "we're not telling you; you'll have to actually do it and then see how we decide to respond".

@Gargron Liberty? I mean this quite seriously, it is about the "It is better for ten guilty people to go free than for an innocent person to be convicted"-type of classically liberal and institution sceptical mode of thinking, where you intentionally do not assume to be able to know/express what is right or wrong with certainty that would legitimise extending power in ways that could be abused.

@Gargron Lately it seems to be about free patches for corporate infrastructure.

What @Gargron says ☝️

One can use free software because of the ethics, or because it's free. But never forget: it is only free BECAUSE OF THE FUCKING ETHICS!

@Gargron @sstephenson The reply is illuminating.

"i went back and read the gnu manifesto and the sections on philosophy at the fsf website, something i haven't done for quite some time. i was convinced I would find something to support the idea that the fsf's mission, while focused on software, is in support of the greater mission of human liberty. but you are right. i was gravely mistaken."

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2026-11/msg00197.html

@Gargron It's recognition that this shit is all deeply personal and subjective.

Sometimes people in power don't think Jews get to do science.

Some people in power don't think that Palestians can argue against genocide on campus.

No-one allowed Denmark to publish a political cartoon. When Yale wrote up the investigation, they weren't allowed to publish the cartoon.

They're all doing it for their own moral reasons.

@Gargron Ethics are central, but I like using it more than I like using commercial software. It tends to be better, and you don't have to worry about a company taking it away or breaking it.

@Gargron Depends on who defines the ethics. I like free software and, personally, I would like to see everything released under more permissive licenses which also includes usage in commercial software without attribution.

@Gargron How is that a ‘yes’..

“We could shoot ourself in the foot but we could also choose not too. We chose yes.”

@Gargron Eugen Rochko being on the right side of history counter: ∞

@Gargron for me free software has been, can we make a world where everyone has free, same access to software? and an ecosystem where if you don’t like what you see, you can change it.

but if the software you use is built off of trash morals why use it?