[directory-discuss] non-free vs anti-feature blacklists

[bill-auger]

On 01/22/2018 10:16 PM, David Hedlund wrote:
> https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Free_Software_Directory:Antifeatures is
> inspired by https://f-droid.org/wiki/page/Antifeatures
>
>
> On 2018-01-22 15:52, bill-auger wrote:
>> On 01/22/2018 08:55 AM, David Hedlund wrote:
>>> I think it's confusing to have both
>>> https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Free_Software_Directory:Antifeatures and
>>>
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Free_Software_Directory:FSDG_Blacklist_Rescue
>>>
>>> when they can be merged to just one page albeit with different top
>>> sections.
>>
>> i am more confused that you think they are similar - those are very
>> different issues - anti-features have nothing to do with licenses or
>> freedom issues
>
> Freedom issues are listed in:
> *
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Free_Software_Directory:Antifeatures#Nonfree
> *
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Free_Software_Directory:Antifeatures#Blacklisted


the main problem i see with this is that "non-free software" is not a
subset of "anti-features" - those are entirely orthogonal concerns; and
so a non-free software blacklist has no place under the heading of
"anti-features" - this is actually quite evident on that page as it is -
the 'non-free' section on that 'Antifeatures' page has these four
sub-sections: 'Bait and surrender', 'Nonfree documentation', 'Free fork
needed!', and 'Superseded' - none of those have anything to do with
software freedom and so those do not belong under a section titled
"non-free" with the possible exception of 'Nonfree documentation'; but
all of those are describing free software - i.e. none of those are
describing non-free software and so those are not among any reasons that
any program could be blacklisted for being non-free (again with the
exception of 'Nonfree documentation') - and therefore none of them
corresponds to the categories of information contained in the actual
existing blacklists - currently, parabola does have some packages that
were blacklisted for non-free documentation; but they are categorized as
'semi-free' along with others that include non-free art or optional
blobs - i could change that but there are very few actual examples -
perhaps the scope of the project could be broadened to include those
packages that are unacceptable for privacy reasons (which is what most
of these stated anti-features reduce to); but the key point is that
"programs with anti-features" would be a subset of the blacklist and not
the other way around

secondly, none of those things are actually "anti-features" - if this is
how the fdroid categorizes things then they are very confused about the
terminology - licenses are not features and so licensing issues can not
be anti-features - the only anti-features noted on that page are
mal-ware/spy-ware/tracking - i will underline again, the FSDG does not
speak of "anti-features" so there is no imperative for anything in that
category to be blacklisted from any distro - these are predominantly
privacy issues that are highly subjective and FSDG distros deal with
these at their own discretion - so it is arguable whether or not they
should be added as a blacklisting category


i should also say something about the 'Blacklisted' section on that page
- this is what it says:

  "This software is not part of the Free Software Directory except to
warn against using it. It is not free software or includes severe
malware and many people have been lead to believe it is ethical free
software. Once there is no longer a popular misconception about this
fact, it's page will be deleted like any software which does not meet
the requirements."

there are several things wrong with that for the purposes of a blacklist:

firstly, the purpose should not be merely to warn against using the
blacklisted programs - the purpose should be as a resource to those who
may choose to do the work to liberate them; by indicating the reasons
why they were blacklisted and how they could be freed

secondly, as i mentioned before, "mal-ware" is not a software freedom
issue - that is an anti-feature that can exist in exactly the same ways
in any software regardless of the licensing - that is precisely where
the distinction should be clearly made separating anti-feature issues
from software freedom issues

lastly, it says as a stated goal that the listing should be removed once
everyone has been warned, even if the problem have not been fixed - that
also is not appropriate for a blacklist but serving a very different
purpose - in order for a blacklist to be meaningful or useful, non-free
programs must remain listed until they are liberated and the blacklist
must be constantly maintained and updated - my intention for the
'FSDG_Blacklist_Rescue' pages is to merge the parabola blacklist data
with the existing
"List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines"
entries which are based on the trisquel blacklists from 2012 and create
a separate wiki page for each item; then to delete that existing page to
be replaced by the "Category:FSDG_Blacklist" page that i asked for, as
the existing page is monolithic (5000 words is too much for one page)
and has mostly fallen out of use in recent years; so it is not clear how
much of the information on that page is still relevant but the intention
is exactly the same - the "categories" approach will allow this list yo
be maintained in a mostly automated way and be more easily search-able
by package name

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature