Freedom Must Always Be Fought For (All the Time)
HISTORY shows that freedom* is taken away when those impacted (by freedom or a lack of it) put their head down or guard down. It teaches us or merely serves to remind us that a lack of freedom is the condition we "default back to" when there's no activism** or insufficient pushback. Put another one, there may never be perpetual peace, enduring calm, or a persistent state of freedom. There is always some "Arsehole" out there wanting to gain control over everybody else (or as many people out there as possible). Humans are like that. Not all humans. But human by nature is greedy and this greed manifests itself in terms like power, not just money. Some want respect, some seek power, some strive to get more money than the next person.
Humans also go to war. It is the total expression to the effect of, "I want what's yours!" To the defending (e.g. invaded side), it's "piss off! Leave me alone! Don't touch what's mine!"
In the case of Free software (computer programs), what we have is many geeks (or "hackers") who want recognition or respect. Money tends to be a secondary factor and if they can distribute their programs to as many people as possible (e.g. by making them zero-cost), they will probably earn both trust and reputation. That's why the attacks on Richard Stallman - the father of this movement - tend to focus on his image/reputation (it's harder to deny Richard Stallman's accomplishments and achievements, so the detractors focus on unrelated aspects of his life), nothing in the monetary sense except defunding the FSF (Microsofters sometimes just try to bankrupt competition; Microsoft doesn't want to be seen as doing so directly in many cases).
Despite all the attacks, Dr. Stallman is still "swinging". He's still giving talks and interviews (example below from Lima). He's still running the GNU Project. He's still alive/living, albeit not too well (cancer). We recently published here (as WebM) two new talks of his in Spanish [1, 2].
That brings us back to freedom. So what does fighting for freedom actually mean? How, for example, could the EPO prevent the invasion of corrupt autocrats like Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos?
There's no simple recipe, but the gist is, respond to attacks on freedom/s (or observable acts of injustice) any time you see them and don't let them grow/expand/permeate. Did Mozilla sneak in some spyware into Firefox? Speak out against it immediately. Don't shy away from criticising Mozilla, for fear it would tarnish the brand. If Mozilla gets away with some nefarious acts once or twice, it'll be tempted to do so again.
In the case of war, Ukraine making territorial concessions (as it already did in 2014 with Crimea) might send Vladimir Putin the message that it's OK to invade a peaceful neighbour and take some "chunks" of it. Piece by piece, in exchange for peace? How long for? Ukrainians are fighting and dying, knowing that countries like Estonia or Poland - or even Finland! - could be next.
Principles matter. Principles keep humanity going.
My wife amuses herself when she sees the word "purist" floated about (by that definition, she too is a "purist"). She says it's ridiculous that they use this word to describe people who prefer not to run secret (proprietary) code because decent free/libre alternatives exist that are auditable and can be trusted. To some people it seems like common sense, whereas others spread the lie that it's like some devout religiousness or an irrational state of mind.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Principles should be commended and applauded, not vilified by name-calling.
Freedom is not something you can legally pursue or accomplish when it is "too late", i.e. when everything is already proprietary or when you live under a dictatorship (like Russia or the EPO). It's something one might dream of and must actively pursue if not fight for on a daily basis. Ridicule of "freedom fighters" in the digital realm is typically orchestrated by dictators or wannabes. They generally know who's gonna stand in their way. █
____
* In its broadest and rather generic sense, freedom refers to a condition where one can exercise one's will, based on desires of oneself. In the digital space, it typically means the user can exercise full control (freedom) over the computer/s and for developers - who are also users - that typically means being able to modify the programs that one uses in liberty (or freedom). Collectively, speaking about both "types" of people (people who can code and people who cannot), such practices reduce the ability of some third party to interfere with the lives of users (or developers) and lessens their potential to gain control over other people's lives via computer programs, either developed or disseminated (e.g. Pegasus).
** Women in the United States learned this after 2016 (newly-appointed Justices in SCOTUS looking to deny them abortion rights) and they might learn this again soon, as the president-elect is a serial assaulter of women. Women did fight to prevent this, but not enough of them... or not enough men joined them in this important fight.