[Hendrikto]

> a hub built around “free software” is now telling its users which kinds of software are deemed good and which are not, and that is closer to censorship than it might seem. Once a platform writes into its terms that an entire category “harms its reputation” and can be removed on that basis, the deciding factor stops being whether the code is legal, or functional, or useful, and becomes whether it aligns with a position the platform has taken.

To me, this is the key point: Service providers should be neutral. Especially ones claiming to be free as in freedom.

Only get involved insofar as it is required by law, and stay out of it otherwise. Individuals can have their opinions and biases, but keep them out of the platforms.

[witx]

Providers should host whatever they feel like hosting. Models were nost likely trained on stolen content, so not allowing vibecoded is taking a stance in favour of free software.

You people keep forgetting that free software is inherintly political and so platforms are more than wellcome of taking a stance. If you don't like don't use it. Quite simple

[Hendrikto]

Free software is about freedom and liberty. Sure, you can decide to prohibit certain use cases. That is absolutely legal and absolutely okay to do. But it makes you non-neutral and non-free.

[Ekaros]

Just because you are making free software doesn't mean you should get everything for free.

[Hendrikto]

I have made it VERY clear that I am talking about FREEdom, not the price. I have to assume your comment is in bad faith.

[48terry]

Fortunately, Codeberg is not free software. It's a service provider providing a service. They themselves can be as non-neutral and non-free as they like. The software beneath it all remains free.

Seriously, just host your own Forgejo if it's that much of a problem. It's right there.

[witx]

What? Free software was never neutral. You think Stallman and Torvalds did what they did because they were neutral?

If I dont like the direction an open source project is taking and I fork it. Does make it less free?

By your line of thought project should all have MIT licenses because you should not add restrictions

[Hendrikto]

> You think Stallman and Torvalds did what they did because they were neutral?

Is that a joke? Both have made it abundantly clear that yes, this is their stance. Let me quote literally the FIRST freedom RMS put into writing:

> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.

This is explicitly free and neutral. "for any purpose", no restrictions. Linus endorsed this stance by licensing the kernel under GPLv2, and has repeatedly upheld this view ever since, making the argument again and again that he does not want to restrict what people do with the project.

Even in his famous announcement message, before adopting GPL, Linus said:

> I'm doing a (free) operating system

Then he licensed Linux with his own free license, before adopting GPL.

> Full source must be available (and free)

Freedom is and has always been important to both RMS and Linus.

> If I dont like the direction an open source project is taking and I fork it. Does make it less free?

No. In fact it is one of the freedoms guaranteed by free software.

> By your line of thought project should all have MIT licenses because you should not add restrictions

There are people making that argument, but there are also people arguing that guaranteeing freedom requires more conditions. There is no real consensus on this question.

[inigyou]

Is Linux neutral against proprietary forks?

[Hendrikto]

Read the comment again. I address this directly.

[witx]

GPLv2 s far from being neutral