There has been a lot of overreacting to a minor post here.
I will readily agree that I was simply wrong when *I* (personally, I
represent no organization here) suggested that the FSF could make a
statement about war. There's a degree to which the org can say some
things, but indeed it is a mission-driven organization that should not
take sides in unrelated political debates.
That said, Devin didn't take sides in any sense or say anything
inappropriate on behalf of the FSF. The only intention of his message
was to say essentially, "FSF will comply with any legal requirements
imposed on it" without even suggesting that any legal requirements are
applicable at this time. The idea that Devin's message meant anything
other thing this is pure misunderstanding.
The gist of my original personal message was simply to assert the main
idea which I still believe: that free software organizations and
developers can state opinions independently of legal and licensing
terms. In other words, while I was clarifying that software freedoms do
not and shall not discriminate among uses and users, that does not in
itself block anyone from expressing requests and opinions about uses and
users.
In other words, I can very well say that I don't like a particular use
or user of some software without that taking away the freedoms of that
user. Similarly, FSF could potentially say that a particular corporation
is overall acting in opposition to software freedom and that FSF takes
the position of asking that corporation to forgo all use of free
software. I'm not saying FSF *should* make such a statement. I'm just
saying that FSF *may* make such a statement without it having any effect
on the actual freedoms of that corporation to use free software.
In short: political opinions are independent of software freedoms.
Political opinions may be expressed appropriately (which is typically
*inappropriate* for FSF if the opinion is unrelated to the mission). And
Devin didn't even express any opinion about anything. He only expressed
that FSF is paying attention to sanctions in order to determine whether
any legal restrictions affect FSF, and if so, FSF will comply will the law.
Aaron
On 2022-02-28 22:09, Jean Louis wrote:
I have asked on this list the FSF representative to list references of
sanctions that apply to FSF. None so far has been shown.
So which sanction exactly is relevant to FSF? That they are not allowed to give
Putin the membership card?
On March 1, 2022 4:37:37 AM UTC, Valentino Giudice
<[email protected]> wrote:
makes me sad, seeing how FSF rushes to be "politically correct" in
the
world run by propaganda machines.
"Politically correct" for doing what, exactly? Literally complying
with sanctions?
Don't they legally have to do that?
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Jean
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
