Aspie96
/
blog
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Edits to free software.

This commit is contained in:
Valentino Giudice 2023-08-20 06:24:33 +02:00
parent 1508c321f1
commit 70eee9eb2f
3 changed files with 56 additions and 93 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
config.toml
View File

@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
baseURL = "https://www.functorfault.net/"
languageCode = "en-us"
title = "My New Hugo Site"
languageCode = "en"
title = "Functor Fault"
theme = "PaperMod"

144
content/posts/free_software.md
View File

@ -1,21 +1,22 @@
---
title: "Free and open source software"
date: 2023-01-04T19:54:01+01:00
date: 2023-08-20T06:21:41+02:00
draft: false
lastmod: 2023-01-07T19:54:01+01:00
---
In this article, I will introduce the concept of free and open source software.
In this article, I will describe the concept of free and open source software.
This is not an article written just for tech-savvy people. On the contrary, it's for everyone, because the topic at hand is important for society as a whole.
The article doesn't assume too much prior knowledge. However, it's not crucial to understand every tiny detail and it is my hope that the most important points will get across, regardless of how tech-minded you are.
If the topic seems complex, don't let this dissuade you from using free and open source software. For end users, its simpler in practice than it may seem.
If the topic seems complex, don't let this dissuade you from using free and open source software. For end users, it's simpler in practice than it may seem.
## Basic ideas
In this article, I will first talk about existing restrictions on software. Then, I will introduce the idea of free and open source software. I will follow with the topic of licensing. I will mention a few ways software can be "remixed". After that, I will discuss the motivations that lead people to develop free and open source software. I will list several advantages of software freedom. Then I will write about its relationship with government policies. I will describe how similar ideas apply to non-software digital assets. Finally, I will give some examples of free and open source software which you may already be familiar with.
Programmers typically create software by writing *source code*, as text, in a *programming language*. It's a detailed description of the program which trained humans and computers alike can understand. It can be converted, trough *compilation*, into other forms that can only be read by computers: *object code*. The result is still the same program, just represented in a different way, which is usually more efficient. The reverse operation (going from object code to human-readable source code) is often hard, if not nearly impossible.
## Restrictions on software
Programmers typically create software by writing *source code*, as text, in a *programming language*. It's a detailed description of the program which trained humans and computers alike can understand. It can be converted, through *compilation*, into other forms that can only be read by computers: *object code*. The result is still the same program, just represented in a different way, which is usually more efficient. The reverse operation (going from object code to human-readable source code) is often hard, if not nearly impossible.
Legally, original literary and artistic works of authorship, such as poems and paintings, are covered by *copyright* (or "author's rights"). Copyright is automatic and it exists from the moment the work is first fixed in a material medium. In general, preparing derivatives based on an existing work, reproducing it in copies or conveying it to the public requires an authorization from the copyright holder and are illegal if unauthorized. Software programs are covered by [copyright](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright) as literary works.
@ -25,7 +26,7 @@ Restrictions on software exist beyond just copyright and withholding source code
## Free software
*Free software* is software which any user, in any field of endeavor, is free to run, copy, distribute, study and modify. This means that it is provided alongside with access to its source code, as well as an authorization to perform these actions.
*Free software* is software which any user, in any field of endeavour, is free to run, copy, distribute, study and modify. This means that it is provided alongside with access to its source code, as well as an appropriate software licence.
In the '80s, the [GNU](https://www.gnu.org/) project, aimed at creating a free operating system, was [announced](https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html) by [Richard Stallman](https://stallman.org/). Stallman then founded the [Free Software Foundation](https://www.fsf.org/), a non-profit organization, which supports GNU and other initiatives. The FSF also maintains the [free software definition](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), which is based on four *[essential freedoms](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms)*.
@ -41,45 +42,45 @@ The *free software movement* supports software freedom on moral grounds, based o
The *open source movement*, based on utilitarianism, rather than moral dogma (like the free software movement), and often focused on cooperation and software quality, has been very successful in its goals, making open source software widespread.
The [Open Source Definition](https://opensource.org/definition-annotated/), maintained by OSI, is based on the [Debian Free Software Guidelines](https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines) (also written by Perens). It is equivalent, in substance, to the FSD by the FSF, expressing the same concepts with different words and a different structure.
The [Open Source Definition](https://opensource.org/definition-annotated/), maintained by OSI, is based on the [Debian Free Software Guidelines](https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines) (also written by Perens). It is equivalent, in substance, to the free software definition by the FSF, expressing the same concepts with different words and a different structure.
Sometimes the phrase "free and open source software" is used to remain neutral between the two alternatives. It can also be shortened as "FOSS" or "[FLOSS](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html)" (where the L stands for "libre"). "Free software" and "open source" can be used interchangeably to refer to the same class of programs, as the Debian community currently does.
Sometimes the phrase "free and open source software" is used to remain neutral between the two alternatives. It can also be shortened as "FOSS" or "[FLOSS](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html)" (where the L stands for "libre"). It's possible to use "free software" and "open source" interchangeably, to refer to the same class of programs, as the Debian community currently does.
Open source is not to be confused with software which is merely *source available*. Whenever source code is provided, the program is indeed source available, but, in order for it to be open source, an appropriate software license, one which grants software freedom, is necessary.
Open source is not to be confused with software which is merely *source available*. Whenever source code is provided, the program is indeed source available, but, in order for it to be open source, an appropriate software licence, one which grants software freedom, is necessary.
## Licenses
## Licences
In order to exercise software freedom, a user needs to be allowed, by the rightholders of the program, to do so, trough a *license* (synonym of "authorization" and of "permission").
Because of legal restrictions on software, such as copyright, a user needs a *licence* (synonym of "authorization" and of "permission") in order to exercise software freedom.
Free software licenses are *public licenses* (granted to anyone who receives a copy of the program) written as reusable documents. In principle, anyone could write one's own, but it's strongly recommended against, in order to prevent [proliferation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation).
Free software licences are *public licences* (granted to anyone who receives a copy of the program) written as reusable documents. In principle, anyone could write one's own, but it's strongly recommended against, in order to prevent [proliferation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation).
Most licenses come under some *conditions* (only applying as long as long as they are met). Certain restrictions are considered compatible with software freedom.
Most licences come under some *conditions* (only applying as long they are met), some of which are considered compatible with software freedom.
Conditions such as that of retaining attribution notices when distributing the program are permissible and widespread in free software licenses, as are disclaimers of warranty and liability. On the other hand, restrictions against commercial use or uses which the author abhors for moral or political reasons can never be part of a free software license, especially when they limit the [freedom to run the program](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html).
Requirements such as that of retaining attribution notices when distributing the program are permissible and widespread in free software licences, as are disclaimers of warranty and liability. On the other hand, restrictions against commercial use or which limit the [freedom to run the program](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html) cannot be part of a free licence.
The [FSF](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html) and [OSI](https://opensource.org/licenses/) each maintain a list of free and open source software licenses. In general, however, few of them, such as the [MIT](https://opensource.org/license/mit/) license, the [Apache 2.0](https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) license, the [GNU GPL](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/) and some others, dominate the free software licensing landscape.
The [FSF](https://www.gnu.org/licences/license-list.html) and [OSI](https://opensource.org/licences/) each maintain a list of free and open source software licences. In general, however, few of them, such as the [MIT](https://opensource.org/license/mit/) licence, the [Apache 2.0](https://www.apache.org/licences/LICENSE-2.0) licence and the [GNU GPL](https://www.gnu.org/licences/), dominate the free software licensing landscape.
## Copyleft
Of all restrictions that are permissible in a free software license, [copyleft](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.html) is arguably the most restrictive, interesting and discussed one.
Of all restrictions that are permissible in a free software licence, [copyleft](https://www.gnu.org/licences/copyleft.html) is arguably the most restrictive, interesting and discussed one.
A copyleft license allows distributing one's own modifications to the program only as free software, without additional restrictions. In essence, it ensures that software freedom is preserved when modified versions of the program are passed on.
A copyleft licence allows distributing one's own modifications to the program only as free software, without additional restrictions. In essence, it ensures that software freedom is preserved when modified versions of the program are passed on.
Most free and open source licenses are not copyleft licenses. When, if ever, to use a copyleft license is, ultimately, a matter of subjective choice.
Most free and open source licences are not copyleft licences. When, if ever, to use a copyleft licence is, ultimately, a matter of subjective choice.
Copyleft can be used strategically as a way to promote the release of free software by others. On the other hand, it can lead to license [incompatibility](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.html), which may prevent mixing pieces of software under different licenses.
Copyleft can be used strategically as a way to promote the release of free software by others. On the other hand, it can lead to licence [incompatibility](https://www.gnu.org/licences/license-compatibility.html), which may prevent mixing pieces of software under different licences.
## Remixing software
There are several ways in which software can be "remixed". These include, amongst others, *forks*, *libraries* and *patches*.
It's always possible to independently modify and then distribute a free program under the same license. When doing so, one is creating a *fork*.
It's always possible to independently modify and then distribute a free program under the same licence. When doing so, one is creating a *fork*.
Programmers almost never start from scratch. A *library* is a collection of software modules which can be reused as components of larger programs.
Software is often developed cooperatively. Maintainers of a project can publish its source code online. Independent programmers can then contribute by sending *patches* (suggested modifications), which maintainers can choose to *merge* (apply) or not.
As a result of mutual cooperation and exercise of software freedom, one program can have hundreds of authors and copyright holders. Each licenses one's own rights (to the respective portions of the program) to the user.
As a result of mutual cooperation and exercise of software freedom, one program can have hundreds of authors and copyright holders. Each licences one's own rights (to the respective portions of the program) to the user.
## Motivations
@ -97,16 +98,16 @@ Companies and individuals alike often contribute to programs they themselves use
Software freedom leads to many advantages for the user, such as:
- *Cost*: While free software doesn't have to be available at no charge, it typically is. Even when it isn't, multiple people can buy one copy and reproduce it among themselves, perfectly legally and morally.
- *Malleability*: Because free software can be modified, it can be customized to one's own needs.
- *Transparency*: Free software can be studied and its inner workings are no secret.
- *Security*: Computer security is not done trough obscurity. When the source code is available, the absence of backdoors can be verified and accidental vulnerabilities can be reported and fixed.
- *Cooperation*: When working cooperatively on a project, free software is ideal because users care share it among themselves and use it without being encumbered by a proprietary license.
- *Privacy*: Unless the very functionalities of the program require that it communicates trough the network, free software can be privately used in secrecy. Privacy is control of one's data, and free software gives more control to the user.
- *Forkability*: Free software can be forked, allowing for different variants of the same program. When the maintainers of a given project abandon it, independent forks can be created, continuing to provide users with updates.
- *Dependability*: A free program never ceases to exist, because any user is allowed to retain copies for any length of time.
- *Versatility*: One can learn how to use a free program and later use it in unforeseen scenarios (such as when a hobby becomes a commercial endeavor), thanks to the unrestricted freedom to run it.
- *Interoperability*: Free program use free file formats, which allows communication between different programs.
- **Cost**: While free software doesn't have to be available at no charge, it typically is. Even when it isn't, multiple people can buy one copy and reproduce it among themselves, perfectly legally and morally.
- **Malleability**: Because free software can be modified, it can be customized to one's own needs.
- **Transparency**: Free software can be studied and its inner workings are no secret.
- **Security**: Computer security is not done through obscurity. When the source code is available, the absence of backdoors can be verified and accidental vulnerabilities can be reported and fixed.
- **Cooperation**: When working cooperatively on a project, free software is ideal because users can share it among themselves and use it without being encumbered by a proprietary licence.
- **Privacy**: Unless the very functionalities of the program require that it communicates through the network, free software can be privately used in secrecy. Privacy is control of one's data, and free software gives more control to the user.
- **Forkability**: Free software can be forked, allowing for different variants of the same program. When the maintainers of a given project abandon it, independent forks can be created, continuing to provide users with updates.
- **Dependability**: A free program never ceases to exist, because any user is allowed to retain copies for any length of time.
- **Versatility**: One can learn how to use a free program and later use it in unforeseen scenarios (such as when a hobby becomes a commercial endeavour), thanks to the unrestricted freedom to run it.
- **Interoperability**: Free program use free file formats, which allows communication between different programs.
You can use free software the way you see fit, share it with others and, with the right tools, tweak it to your needs. You can run it privately, for any purpose, without yielding control to someone else. You can cooperate with others who don't want to be restricted either. A free program won't suddenly stop existing, nor will it force you to make an update you don't want. It won't make your files, your digital life, accessible only at the erratic whim of someone else, nor will it lock them behind the gate of a file format which can only be opened with the approval of some company.
@ -114,80 +115,40 @@ When a piece of proprietary software is made available, this is only a step forw
The advantages of free software are relevant for individual users and also, possibly much more, for companies and enterprise users. They are, however, even greater for government-run institutions.
## Governments and free software
## Governments
Software freedom is especially important when it comes to government entities. It makes algorithms transparent and allows for independent audits. It helps governments achieve technological sovereignty and stay in control of their processes and data.
Software freedom is especially important when it comes to government entities. It makes algorithms transparent and allows for independent audits. It helps states achieve technological sovereignty and stay in control of their processes and data. It fosters democracy because it doesn't shift power to the hands of software authors.
While proprietary software moves power in the hands of its authors,
Free software is cheaper and, when new programs need to be developed, releasing them as free is a good use of public money for the common good. Furthermore, citizens often need to run software on their own devices for bureaucratic reasons. Forcing them to accept the terms of a proprietary licence would be an injustice.
In an increasingly digitalized world, free software is crucial for a free society. It allows public entities to adhere to policies decided trough the democratic process, rather than constraining their behavior to the terms of software authors. It also saves money when programs are reused and put it to good use when new ones are developed and released for the public benefit.
Multiple [governments](https://opensource.org/authority/) have adopted policies on free and open source software.
Citizens often need to run software on their own devices for bureaucratic reasons. Forcing them to accept the terms of a proprietary license would be an injustice.
The government of the United States. The Department of Defense has a [FAQ](https://dodcio.defense.gov/open-source-software-faq/) document on open source and policies on the matter, as well as a dedicated [website](https://code.mil/) on its open source projects. Code published by DoD is also available on a larger, more general, [platform](https://www.code.gov/) which the government runs in line, which the [Federal Source Code Policy](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf).
Multiple governments have adopted policies on free and open source software.
‘... it is not too late to achieve technological sovereignty in some critical technology areas.’
Transparency and security are critical. Furthermore, a free license allows public institutions to act according to laws and internal policies, rather than bending to the interests of software authors.
The way in which the government operates should be decided trough the democratic process, not limited by proprietary software licenses which would shift power in the hands of rightholders.
It is in the interest of legislators and authorities to keep the sovreingnty of the State.
Countires do not need software authors to restrict certain actions, such as those which they abhor for moral or political reasons (a clause incompatible with software freedom). They already have the power to legislate in their own jurisdiction. Anything they aren't allowed to prohibit (for example, for constitutional reasons), they shouldn't forbid trough some kind of back door.
Whether the government should perform any given action should be decided trough the democratic process
Often citizens need to run software on their own devices for bureaucratic reasons. Forcing them to accept the terms of a proprietary license would be an injustice.
Software freedom is healthy for democracy in a free society.
https://opensource.org/authority/
The European Union has an [Open Source Software Strategy](https://commission.europa.eu/select-language?destination=/node/117) to leverage the trasformative, innovative and collaborative power of open source. The strategy encourages sharing and reusing, to enrich society with better services while lowering costs.
https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2015-08-07;124!vig=2020-02-05
https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2017-12-13;217!vig=
Open code makes algorithms transparent and allows for independent audits and reproducible builds. By
extension, the strategy helps the Commission stay in control of its processes, data, information and
technology.
‘... it is not too late to achieve technological sovereignty in some critical technology areas.’
Governments
across Europe and in the worlds’ leading nations have adopted policies on open source.
The *[Public Money? Public Code!](https://publiccode.eu/)* campaign, in Europe, asks for legislation requiring that publicly financed software developed for the public sector be published as free software.
The European Union has an [Open Source Software Strategy](https://commission.europa.eu/select-language?destination=/node/117) to leverage the transformative, innovative and collaborative power of open source. The strategy encourages sharing and reusing, to enrich society with better services while lowering costs.
Italian law [requires](https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2005-03-07;82~art68) that public administrations consider free software solutions. It also [mandates](https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2005-03-07;82~art69) that they publish custom-built software as open source. [Agenzia per l'Italia Digitale](https://www.agid.gov.it/), an Italian public agency, has [guidelines](https://www.agid.gov.it/it/design-servizi/riuso-open-source/linee-guida-acquisizione-riuso-software-pa) on the matter, which reference the free software definition and the Open Source Initiative.
The Italian region of Piedmont has a [law](http://arianna.cr.piemonte.it/iterlegcoordweb/dettaglioLegge.do?urnLegge=urn:nir:regione.piemonte:legge:2009;9) on the adoption and diffusion of free software and portability of digital documents.
Thanks to software freedom, governments can uphold copyright and still exercise their sovereignty in determining the policies that need to be followed, and exactly what can and cannot be done within the borders of their jurisdictions, without giving excessive control or de-facto authority to software authors.
## Non-software assets
Software programs aren't the only digital assets that can be distributed under a free license. Artworks, books, music and all sorts of other works are also subject to copyright.
Software programs aren't the only digital assets that can be distributed under a free licence. Artworks, books, music and all sorts of other works are also subject to copyright.
The [Definition of Free Cultural Works](https://freedomdefined.org/Definition) and the [Open Definition](https://opendefinition.org/) (by the [Open Knowledge Foundation](https://okfn.org/)) independently provide definitions that can be used to establish which licenses are "free" or "open". The relevant freedoms are the same as those for free and open source software, just translated out of the software domain.
The [Definition of Free Cultural Works](https://freedomdefined.org/Definition) and the [Open Definition](https://opendefinition.org/) (by the [Open Knowledge Foundation](https://okfn.org/)) independently provide definitions that can be used to establish which licences are "free" or "open". The relevant freedoms are the same as those for free and open source software, just translated out of the software domain.
[Creative Commons](https://creativecommons.org/) is a nonprofit organization which writes public licenses. Some of them are proprietary because they include non-free restrictions (such as those against commercial use or sharing derivative works), some are free.
[Creative Commons](https://creativecommons.org/) is a non-profit organization which writes public licences. Some of them are proprietary because they include non-free restrictions (such as those against commercial use or sharing derivative works), some are free.
Creative Commons [clarifies](https://creativecommons.org/2008/02/20/approved-for-free-cultural-works/) which, among its legal tools, are are suitable for free cultural works. These include [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) (a public domain declaration), [CC BY](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and [CC BY-SA](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Free licenses for non-software works published by other organizations also exist, such as the [Free Art License](https://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/) and the [GNU GPL](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html) (which, while mainly designed for software, can also be used for other works).
Creative Commons [clarifies](https://creativecommons.org/2008/02/20/approved-for-free-cultural-works/) which, among its legal tools, are suitable for free cultural works. These include [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) (a public domain declaration), [CC BY](https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/) and [CC BY-SA](https://creativecommons.org/licences/by-sa/4.0/). Free licences for non-software works published by other organizations also exist, such as the [Free Art License](https://artlibre.org/license/lal/en/) and the [GNU GPL](https://www.gnu.org/licences/licences.html) (which, while mainly designed for software, can also be used for other works).
The concept of "source code" exists for non-software assets too and it has the same meaning: the preferred form of the work for making modifications. It's arguably less fundamental than for software, though, since books and art pieces are intelligible to humans (and, with some effort, also modifiable) even when stored in other formats. Some copyleft free licenses (such as the GNU GPL) require that access to source code is given when distributing a derivative, while others (such as CC BY-SA and the Free Art License) do not.
The concept of "source code" exists for non-software assets too and it has the same meaning: the preferred form of the work for making modifications. It's arguably less fundamental than for software, though, since books and art pieces are intelligible to humans (and, with some effort, also modifiable) even when stored in other formats. Some copyleft free licences (such as the GNU GPL) require that access to source code is given when distributing a derivative, while others (such as CC BY-SA and the Free Art License) do not.
The same digital asset (for example, an image) can be stored in a computer file in many different *formats* that represent the same information differently. Some file formats can only be read using proprietary software (due to secrets or legal restrictions), constraining the user, while others can be dealt with using free and open source software. When distributing free cultural works, it's important to use a free format, so as to avoid these restrictions.
The distinction between software and non-software items in the world of free and open content does matter to some extent, but is not crucial and is blurred for some assets. The same freedoms and, often, the same terminologies and even the same licenses apply across different domains.
The Free Software Definition, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, the Open Source Definition, the Definition of Free Cultural Works and the Open Definition all describe the same set of freedoms and should be read in the most convergent way possible, keeping the tradition and the common norms of the free and open source software community in context.
## Examples
In technical endeavors, free software is common at every level, for programming, managing online services, security purposes and more. It is not, however, just for the tech-savvy.
There are several well-known cross-platform free and open source programs, publicly available at no charge, which you may be familiar with. Here are just a few:
- [Mozilla Firefox](https://www.mozilla.org/it/firefox/): Web browser.
@ -200,11 +161,9 @@ There are several well-known cross-platform free and open source programs, publi
- [Telegram](https://telegram.org/): Messaging app. The Telegram *client* (the program actually running on users' device) is free and open source. The *server* software is not published in any form.
- [calibre](https://calibre-ebook.com/): E-book manager.
Even proprietary programs commonly contain portions of free software that their developers decided to use. There are also, almost definitely, many free programs that you depend on for your computing even if you never see them, as they run in the background of your operating system (but are necessary for everything else).
Besides high-level applications, you have probably heard of [Linux](https://www.kernel.org/): a free *kernel* (the core component of an operating system). Linux is used by Debian, by Android and by many more. It's an important part of the open source ecosystem.
You have probably heard of [Linux](https://www.kernel.org/): a free and open source *kernel*. The kernel of an operating system is a crucial background program that manages resources, orchestrates all other programs and performs certain actions on behalf of them. Many operating systems use Linux as a kernel and have the word "Linux" in their name.
As for free cultural content, [Wikipedia](https://www.wikipedia.org/) is a free (libre) encyclopedia: its articles are available under the [CC BY-SA](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) license.
As for free cultural content, [Wikipedia](https://www.wikipedia.org/) is a free (libre) encyclopedia: its articles are available under the [CC BY-SA](https://creativecommons.org/licences/by-sa/4.0/) licence.
## Additional resources
@ -214,14 +173,17 @@ As for free cultural content, [Wikipedia](https://www.wikipedia.org/) is a free
- *[Definition of Free Cultural Works](https://freedomdefined.org/Definition)* by Definition of Free Cultural Works
- *[The Open Definition](https://opendefinition.org/)* by the Open Knowledge Foundation
- *[Permissible restrictions](https://freedomdefined.org/Permissible_restrictions)* by Definition of Free Cultural Works
- *[Copyheart](https://copyheart.org/)* by Nina Paley
- *[Selling Free Software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)* by the GNU Project
- *[Introduction to Free Software and the Liberation of Cyberspace](https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/20140407-geneva-tedx-talk-free-software-free-society/)* by Richard Stallman
- *[Why Software Should Not Have Owners](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html)* by Richard Stallman
- *[Categories of Free and Nonfree Software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html)* by the GNU Project
- *[Goodbye, "free software"; hello, "open source"](http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html)* by Eric Raymond
- *[The Revenge of the Hackers](http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-revenge.html)* by Eric Raymond
- *[On Usage of The Phrase "Open Source"](https://web.archive.org/web/20230506135235/https://perens.com/2017/09/26/on-usage-of-the-phrase-open-source/) by Bruce Perens
- *[Why Software Should Not Have Owners](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html)* by Richard Stallman
- *[Selling Free Software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)* by the GNU Project
- *[On Usage of The Phrase "Open Source"](https://web.archive.org/web/20230506135235/https://perens.com/2017/09/26/on-usage-of-the-phrase-open-source/)* by Bruce Perens
- *[Blender is Free Software](https://code.blender.org/2019/06/blender-is-free-software/)* by Ton Roosendaal
- *[Happy birthday to GNU](https://www.gnu.org/fry/)* by Stephen Fry
- *[It's legal but unethical](https://justintadlock.com/archives/2013/08/19/its-legal-but-unethical)* by Justin Tadlock
- *[What Is The Spirit of Open Source?](https://haacked.com/archive/2012/02/22/spirit-of-open-source.aspx/)* by Phil Haack
- *[Let's Talk About Open Source](https://blog.sentry.io/lets-talk-about-open-source/)* by David Cramer
- *[Open Source is Not About You](https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba9519972d9)* by Rich Hickey

1
statichost.yml
View File

@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
domains:
- www.functorfault.net
- functorfault.net
- functorfault.i2p