From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
Linus' thread: (CW: bigotry and racism in the comments) https://social.kernel.org/notice/AWSXomDbvdxKgOxVAm (you need to scroll down, i can't seem to link to the comment in the screenshot)
Honestly I don't understand this kind of argument. Linux is political: compare it to its alternatives, look at the license it's released under, and so on. Lemmy is the same way. Lemmy even has a section in the manual about how it's fundamentally political: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/en/users/07-history-of-lemmy.html
The motivations for creating open source software can be political, but the product itself is apolitical. Programming code is pure logic and has no opinions.
I don't even really believe that software licenses are inherently political. All they do is permit/restrict specific rights to attribute, use, modify, reproduce, distribute, etc. the code. The only real political position I could see against software licenses is one that doesn't believe in protecting intellectual property rights. So if we're going that far, I will tacitly agree that software licenses could potentially be considered political, but not in a very meaningful sense IMHO.
Lol. I don't think you know what political means.
I actually do know what political means. Care to explain why you think software licenses are political instead of laughing at what I consider to be a completely reasonable statement?
If you need it explained to you, then you don't know what political means.
Can you explain to me how, for example, Stuxnet is apolitical?
Can you explain how these restrictions/permissions are apolitical?
Stuxnet itself doesn't care whose centrifuges it destroys (in fact it doesn't care or have an awareness that it's destroying anything at all), it does what it's programmed to do and is deployed to do by people with political goals. It's not the same thing as Stuxnet itself being political.
I did say that I could conceive of one way that software licenses could be considered somewhat political if one's politics reject the validity of intellectual property. But then again, the software licenses are also not the code itself. If one doesn't believe in the concept of intellectual property, one is free to accept whatever risk is involved with breaking the license and using it anyway. The software doesn't care who's running it.
I know this is all somewhat pedantic, but I pretty firmly believe no software is inherently political. At least maybe not until we have a computer system that achieves some form of sentience and its operating instructions are subject to its own will.
This was actually pretty thought-provoking, so thanks for that. It seems like your argument is founded on the idea that non-sentient entities are incapable of being politically charged. In a vacuum where no sentient entities exist to charge them politically, this is trivially true. However, we don't live in such a vacuum. As such, one must take into consideration that a subset[^1] of people do consider a subset[^1] of non-sentient entities to be inherently politically charged, and since one can't know who considers what to be politically charged, one must treat all non-sentient entities as (at least potentially) politically charged. Of course, one may choose to ignore that subset[^1] of people (which itself is a politically charged decision) but that doesn't change the fact that any given non-sentient entity could be considered politically charged.
Sorry, it seems you've repeated yourself rather than addressing the specific point I had asked for elaboration on. Would you mind trying again?
[^1]: Specifically a "non-strict subset" in the mathematical sense
I didn't repeat myself on the second point. Either one's politics endorse intellectual property rights, which include the rights of an individual or organization to permit/limit any or all of those specific facets I mentioned previously according to their preference or one does not believe intellectual property rights exist. That's the only meaningful way I can conceive of software licenses being a political concept, but I'm welcome to hear your take.