Creating FSCI Manifesto

Original context https://codema.in/d/6Oe38XUT/proposing-fsciconf-as-a-more-free-software-aligned-national-conference/3

Current status: Draft: Inviting contributions, please comment and propose amendments or edit directly (you can see the edit history for changes).

"When the Free Software movement began in 1984 by Richard Stallman, it was a response to proprietary software gaining momentum. Sharing software was the norm before. In those days, the challenges were limited to the development and use of the software itself.

We have now progressed greatly on that aspect when it comes to general purpose software. We have the GNU/Linux operating system (such as Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora), the Mozilla Firefox web browser, the LibreOffice/Only Office suites, the VLC media player, GIMP image editor, Blender animation suite and many others. But we now face challenges of a different nature, such as -

1. Practical difficulties with respect to modifying software (e.g. poor documentation, large code-base, inaccessible code architecture, etc) — this is applicable to all software. Web browsers and Android /smartphone operating systems in particular are large and complex, and depend on companies like Google for maintenance.

   Traditionally in many Free Software projects, development is driven by developers and many times features that excites developers gets priority over what users need. This creates a disconnect between users and developers. Sometimes users demand specific features from volunteers, which also adds to the disconnect.

   Some Free Software is developed by businesses and are driven by profit motives, so in those projects also users priorities are linked to profits. If we want users to be able to prioritize features, we need platforms to collectively raise funds and hire developers. If we are paying, then developers can dedicate time which they otherwise have to give for work that sustains their living, as opposed to only dedicating free time.

   Prav (for messaging) and DEPHCOM (for smartphone Operating System) are two such experiments from our community members to bring users to drive development direction of Free Software projects. We encourage more such experiments in different areas of Free Software.

2. Usability issues due to complex, unpleasant, or non-intuitive interfaces. Technological advancements have let to its adoption by many more people, and part of what made this possible is design that made interactions intuitive without having to learn the technical concepts behind them. On a related note, attention has been given to making things look pleasing to the eye, something which is culturally as well as technically driven.

   Free Software projects have a tendency to be driven by tech enthusiasts leading to less attention given to design and usability: if there are buttons or options to make things work, however badly placed, they are often passed as acceptable. This ends up driving people to nonfree software that is easier to understand and more pleasant to use.

   Some efforts have been made towards this end by projects like GNOME and Penpot that have dedicated design teams.

3. Platform dependency when essential tools and services opt to become "app based" rather than making a webapp or using other established standards that make them accessible to a wider variety of devices. Usually, this means supporting only a narrow set of proprietary operating systems like Android and iOS. Even when it is technically capable of running on similar systems (such as LineageOS or Waydroid), the software is often programmed to detect a so-called "unapproved" setup and refuse to run.

   Given the high prevalence of such practices, this creates barriers to anyone wanting to use more freedom-respecting operating systems and platforms, or who want to use the service using a more customised device such as an epaper tablet or a feature phone. Essential services like banking and ticketing are some examples of huge hurdles, but there are also numerous smaller ones, such as vending machines or luggage lockers that require the installation of a proprietary app designed for a proprietary platform in order to function.

4. Network effects that prevent running modified versions of software (e.g. Signal, and other centralized social-network based software). For this reason, privacy and decentralization have become as important as the software license. Unlike general purpose software like an Operating System or Office suite, software that depends on servers to mediate between users, we not only require users, but also maintain the servers (for example Video Conferencing or Online Office suites), and additionally become activists when it comes platforms with network effects/vendor lock-in (for example messaging platforms).

   We at FSCI have been providing communications and collaboration platforms for many years, but it has not been really sustainable without heroic efforts from a few people. Thus, we recommend and promote better models like the Prāv cooperative, where more people take responsibility and commitment, the financial burden is more evenly shared, peoples' time and efforts are financially compensated, and decisions are taken democratically as a cooperative.

5. Locked-down hardware. All software is ultimately useless without hardware to run on. While the decades since 1984 have seen a lot of freedom-respecting and hackable hardware, there is also an increasing trend of locking down devices and only allowing so-called "authorised" operating systems or applications to run on them.

   As an immediate example, one only has to observe that (almost) every laptop allows you to pick up and run (almost) any operating system of your choice, but the smartphone world has various hurdles ranging from arbitrary restrictions like "locking" the bootloader, to requiring approval from some self-appointed authority or other before being allowed to develop apps. Worryingly, rather than removing such restrictions, the trend seems to be to attempt to do this on laptops and other computing devices as well.

6. Reliance on huge amounts of data for training the models or other prerequisites like huge computing power that are impossible to procure (e.g. LLMs) — this is why an "open-source AI" would still not be considered freedom-respecting. We think https://publicai.co/about addresses some of our concerns about neutrality, transparency and privacy, by offering an LLM as a public good in collaboration with many public institutions like governments and using Free Software, without requiring an account to use it.

7. Diversity and inclusion. We want to be welcoming to diverse set of contributors with different set of life experiences and social barriers in everyday life. We need to provide a safe and respectful space for collaboration without allowing any kind of discrimination while participating in our communities. We have a Code of Conduct (https://fsci.in/code-of-conduct/) and take it very seriously.

8. Recognising that technology is inherently political. We believe that technology, with the great impact it can have on society, in inherently political, and that trying to be "apolitical" is the same as perpetuating the status quo. If that status quo happens to be sexist or fascist, for example, that is not something we want to be perpetuating.

   Being political does not necessarily mean being politicians or trying to convince people to vote for you. Neither does it mean supporting or opposing one political party or another.

   Rather, in this context, it means having goals and ideas about how technology can best be made to improve society—such as the goals and ideas laid out in this manifesto—and keeping them in our consciousness as we work towards them.

   While we will not choose to support or collaborate with projects based on politics alone, this philosophy means that politics will necessarily be one of the many factors we take into account. In other words, our evaluation of technical merits of initiatives will include, to the extent appropriate, the politics behind them and the community around them. Conversely, we will articulate our own ideas, philosophies, and motivations on the projects we initiate.

Therefore,

1. In addition to promoting Free Software ideas, the Free Software Community of India wants to be at the forefront of addressing challenges as they come up, and to take the community forward to achieve user freedom not merely on their personal devices, but on platforms and public infrastructure as well.

2. At the same time, we acknowledge the newer challenges are harder and require more patience and understanding from all of us.

3. We will use Free Software powered platforms for our own organizing and promotion, and will be careful about our presence on proprietary platforms. If we are present or bridged to such platforms, the primary goal should be to bring people to Free Software and decentralized replacements. This would involve limited promotion of proprietary platforms in our other online presences like websites or Fediverse handles.

   Proprietary presence should prominently advertise and encourage people to move to our preferred alternatives, but our preferred channels should not advertise the proprietary options.

4. We support projects like Wikipedia and Open Street Map that provides Free Knowledge and Free Map data.

5. We support projects like publicai.co that are designed as public goods, using Free Software and offering privacy for users.

Contributors/reviewers: Akshay S Dinesh, Pirate Praveen, Badri/Hippo, Fugata, Ravi Dwivedi, Pirate King

Original context https://codema.in/d/6Oe38XUT/proposing-fsciconf-as-a-more-free-software-aligned-national-conference/3