Libre Culture

4472 readers

1 users here now

What is libre culture?

Libre culture is all about empowering people. While the general philosophy stems greatly from the free software movement, libre culture is much broader and encompasses other aspects of culture such as music, movies, food, technology, etc.

Some beliefs include but aren't limited to:

That copyright should expire after a certain period of time.
That knowledge should be available to people, not locked away.
That no entity should have unjust control or possession of others.
That mass surveillance is about mass control, not justice.
That we can all band together to help liberate each other.

Check out this link for more.

Rules

I've looked into the ways other forums handle rules, and I've distilled their policies down into two simple ideas.

Please show common courtesy: Let's make this community one that people want to be a part of.
Please keep posts generally on topic
No NSFW content
When sharing a Libre project, please include the name of its license in the title. For example: “Project name and summary (GPL-3.0)”

Libre culture is a very very broad topic, and while it's perfectly okay for a conversation to stray, I do ask that we keep things generally on topic.

Related Communities

Helpful Resources

Community icon is from Wikimedia Commons and is public domain.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

A short critique of Stallmanism (archive.is)

submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 children)

Stallman's often times 'lone quest' is the very reason the article exists and the fact the conversation is even had. The concept of 'Stallmanism' at this point only serves to move the 'overton window' of what is conceived to be possible. I find it baffling that the author thinks a political outlet to protest Windows privacy issues would reach any audience. I also find it baffling that they think a change can occur to effectively outlaw non free software, when it is a huge struggle to get anybody to change spreadsheet software or communications tools.

TL;DR this is a fringe issue, and getting people to care about it in significant numbers is a long lost battle.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 years ago (1 children)

I don't think this is correct at all, personally. You're saying that the article espouses the idea that we get a "significant number" of individual people to care about this seemingly fringe issue, but that's the liberal response that this article actual argues against. The article says we need to achieve a systemic solution, and essentially ground the Stallmanist free software movement into the socio-political sphere even more than it already is, because at the moment it doesn't go far past the individual. This doesn't mean convincing a ton of people that they should use free software, but instead working toward the goal of making free software the norm so that the freedoms it holds be equally accessible to all and the material interests that people have in free software be understood.

It is crucial to understand and accept the class dynamics of politics, and to realize that our efforts should not lie in explaining people their interests, but rather organizing to best achieve them. Imagine if all those who were outraged by, for example, Windows 10 spying on them, were given an integrated political platform to properly understand the root cause of these issues and the proper way to resist them!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

I fail to see how you can make anything the norm without getting numbers on board, sorry.

It's bizarre to me that you say it argues against getting a significant number and then you quote the article saying 'imagine if all those who were outraged'.

That quote assumes there is a significant number, in my experience that is not true.