>> We already know that Copilot as it stands is unacceptable and unjust, from our perspective. It requires running software that is not free/libre (Visual Studio, or parts of Visual Studio Code), and Copilot is Service as a Software Substitute.
So they dont know / not sure of the question of GPL usage in copilot. But they have a problem with SaaS and product that are not open sourced?
The entire purpose of the Free Software Foundation is that any product you offer to a user should be owned fully by the user, which means they should be able to take it apart, modify it to suit their specific needs, and put it back together. At minimum, that means they need to be able to see the source code and be able to build it themselves and run it on their own hardware.
So yes, closed-source software as a service is inherently unethical.
You don't have to agree with them, but they've been pretty consistent in this position for nearly 40 years. It's not exactly coming out of left field.
I dont know. I guess I am not well versed with FSF. I thought they were to promote Free Software, I didn't know their world view was any non-open source software are "unacceptable and unjust".
They promote Free Software (and specifically copyleft over permissive licenses) because they view proprietary software as morally wrong and something that should not exist.
That sounds like the completely wrong word for that. The free software foundation advocates for free software, does not like non-free software, big surprise.
Similarly fair trade does consider non-fair trade unethical.
You might disagree with that but having an opinion does not make one a "bigot".
There is a difference between advocating for free software and saying that all non-free software is evil. To compare to the original meaning of "bigotry", there is a difference between talking about how great your religion is and talking about how all other religions are evil.
Non-fair trade is considered unethical based on ethics. FSF considers closed source unethical based on their particular agenda, which has nothing to do with ethics or morality.
> Non-fair trade is considered unethical based on ethics.
No, it is not. If it were, fair trade wouldn't be niche. It adds lots of other obligations on companies "based on their particular agenda". I think it is worthwhile goal and something I like to support, but won't pretend that it is somehow pure, self-evident goodness, just like non-fair trade is not pure evil.
Again, you might disagree or have different ideas what "free" is supposed to mean but you should be better than throwing around phrases like "agenda" or "nothing to do with ethics or morality".
People and societies have no problem with ignoring ethics when it benefits them. Otherwise we wouldn’t be waging wars and sucking profits off poorer societies.
Fair trade is based on pretty fundamental ethics, such as fighting slavery. Can you point any such concept being foundational to Free Software?
> Fair trade is based on pretty fundamental ethics, such as fighting slavery.
Not really, no. Again, lots of non-"fair trade" products exist and those are not against fighting slavery.
> Can you point any such concept being foundational to Free Software?
Seriously? Their whole stick is fighting software practices they consider unethical. You might disagree whether that is fundamental ethics, but to them it is and it is rude and dishonest to pretend that is not the case.
For example, I am not vegetarian, but understand that there are people who feel strongly about that. That is fine and if you go "vegetarians are pushing their agenda which has nothing to do with ethics" that says more about you than about them.
Vegetarians do have a valid point: eating meat involves animal suffering. That’s ethics, not an entirely arbitrary, unfounded belief. Again, how does Free Software relate to ethics?
So they dont know / not sure of the question of GPL usage in copilot. But they have a problem with SaaS and product that are not open sourced?