So the discussion around #Tusky is still ongoing. To answer the questions once and for all:
No, blocking something in your software doesn't make it non-free. By definition the LICENSE is not allowed to restrict usage in order to make it free software. The software itself can always do.
Yes, blocking instances is still an anti-feature. By definition an anti-feature is an explicitly added restriction which has no technical reason but a user might act in order to get rid of it.
@sheogorath What else can you do about a software project, which doesn't obey your will, other than calling it names?
Many people still don't understand even that "free" in this case is not about the cost, let alone the distinction between the license restrictions and (anti)features. So why not try and attempt to discredit the project / damage it's reputation, as a warning for others?
@sheogorath It sort of reminds me of the case that OpenBSD project contains an entire paragraph right in the main site's front page, explaining that it's FREE (capitalized) as in freedom, because apparently many people assume it's not (since it's, well, BSD).
@sheogorath A user can’t get rid of it. The user would have to recompile and hunt for the offending commit, barely an user more than a developer at that point.
The software violates freedom 0. The software IS non-free. The distinction between license and software capabilities is pointless because the actual reality is that the software doesn’t let you do whatever you want and instead gatekeeps you.
Fuck non-free Tusky. Period.
@one That's a misunderstanding.
> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
You can run Tusky with the purpose to access blocked sites. It's just that the software is not capable of it.
That's why you have the freedoms 1 and 3, so you or someone you ask for, can add this capability.
So the "The distinction between license and software capabilities is" explicitly not "pointless" but mandatory in order to make free software work in any known legal system.
> You can run Tusky with the purpose to access blocked sites. It's just that the software is not capable of it.
> the software is not capable of it.
No. The developer is malicious and intentionally and unilaterally decided to gatekeep users.
The developer is simply evil. There's no misunderstanding. There's no subterfuge. This is a violation of fundamental freedoms. This is non-negotiable.
"But Gab are nazis". Perhaps. The developer is still evil and opinionated.
@sheogorath No free software developer should ever feel encompassed to do what the Tusky developer did. This is completely unacceptable.
@one I'm fine with the statement "the developer is evil". I mean, that's a very different discussion.
But what makes free software, free software? Destruction of the power *monopoly* of a developer.
This is achieved by removing legal restrictions for running and sharing software and forcing republishing source code for compiled/packed/… programs along with tools to build/flash them yourself.
In no way it talks about (anti-)features of programs.
@sheogorath You also have to be pragmatic. This is not an anti-feature, this is a clear violation of the freedom of users. An anti-feature would be something like not letting people with 2FA log in, or not allowing to make posts with more than 100 characters. This is not that. It is clearly an ideological, opinionated move on behalf of the developer.
@one anti-features are features that "a user would pay for to go away". I.e. restrictions within a software that can be "paid away". Exactly that is possible fir this login restriction. Just that you have to pay another developer to make it happen. But that is no problem thanks to freedom 3.
So in conclusion: free software.
@sheogorath ... absolutely not?
You pay, you said it *ANOTHER* developer. Not the same. Not an anti-feature, absolutely.
Still not free software.
Open source, if at all. Non-free bullshit.
@one Let me quote from the GNU foundation:
> The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden or stopped from making it run. This has nothing to do with what functionality the program has, whether it is technically capable of functioning in any given environment, or whether it is useful for any particular computing activity.
@sheogorath This statement does not talk about opinionated developers who unilaterally add features to restrict the user's freedom, right?
Because, remember, this is not lack of functionality, but an intentional addition to keep this software from operating in what would otherwise be a working environment.
This is clearly anti-freedom.
@one That's correct, it doesn't talk about "evil developers". But it also doesn't talk about "lack of functionality" but simply about technical capability. It doesn't matter *why* the program is not capable.
freedom 0 is plain simple about: Are you allowed to run it? And the answer is yes. Therefore freedom 0 is not violated by Tusky.
@sheogorath "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)."
I cannot run it to connect to Gab.
Again, the reason behind this is the developer unilaterally deciding Gab is not acceptable.
According to this, yes:
We'll see if/when an official post appears on his own blog or the GNU foundation's blog.
@one Again: "This has nothing to do with what functionality the program has, […] or whether it is useful for any particular computing activity"
You can open Tusky and try to connect to Gab and non of this is restricted by the software's license. So you have freedom 0.
Eben Moglen; General Counsel of the FSF
"We are saying that the licence should prohibit technical means of evasion of its rules, with the same clarity that it prohibits legal evasion of its rules, that's all."
My point is that at some it is possible to violate freedom 0 through technical means, but yes this Tusky thing is probably too easy to avoid for the FSF to care.
> All software is political, whether you like it or not.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
> there's nothing bad about not giving Nazis tools to interact with each other.
You are still part of the problem. You don't want freedom. You cannot handle freedom. Freedom has consequences, and you are too afraid to accept the full consequences.
@kaniini @dtluna @sheogorath Having the freedom to revert malicious commits does not mean that the software ITSELF is free, because, like I said, it was intentionally modified, in a malicious way, to prevent it from performing what would otherwise be regular functionality as advertised by the developer.
Muslims, nazis, Chinese Communist Party members, SS soldiers (from the nazi SS).
No. You certainly don't want freedom. Freedom also means that the baddies get to write (and read) books, TV shows and all that kind of shit.
Your attitude of us vs them is what fuels them. It makes them look like heros against the evil status quo. You're part of the problem.
Is it because I don't agree with your anticapitalist, feminist, radical leftist ideology that I'm now also your enemy?
Most of your enemies are illusions. Every one in a while, you should stop to carefully consider what other people are or think about before you attack them as if they were your enemies.