Cyberspace

Posts about cyberspace and liberty. Free software, privacy, technology, copyright/copyleft, our digital rights, and whatever concerns us in the digital age.

How to move to GNU+Linux

You may have notice that one of my emphasis is the use of free software and GNU operating system. Almost all of GNU distros come with a Linux kernel so we’ll call it GNU+Linux, and not only GNU.

Free software is one of the most important parts of my digital life. There’s no proprietary software running on my computers but what makes that happen is the GNU operating system and the Linux kernel (GNU+Linux).

For some people, migrating to GNU+Linux is easy and some even know the benefits. However, some people still don’t know why they should migrate to GNU+Linux. If you feel your computer works fine but you are

  • tired of major unwanted forced updates
  • tired of your slow operating system
  • tired of not being able to use a new technology
  • tired of viruses and spywares
  • tired of your privacy being violated
  • tired of being limited
  • tired of not owning your software
  • tired of not being free (as in freedom) about your software

then GNU+Linux is a wise choice for you. If you don’t know how you should start using free software and a free (as in freedom and most of the times as in price) operating system, then this small guide would be helpful.

Read more… “How to move to GNU+Linux”

Discriminatory laws must be broken

As a person who lives in a country under heavy U.S. sanctions, I know how discrimination feels and looks. What the United States has done to us is a good example of how discrimination affects people. My country is under heavy sanctions from U.S. and even basic stuff are facing troubles for import or export.

Whenever I talk about computers or software services, people suggest me different stuff to use or buy and every time I explain how I, like another people here, are deprived from having those stuff because of U.S sanctions.

U.S has the power over a lot of countries to force them do what it likes but this is unacceptable. I agree that Unites States wants to make sure they and their allies are safe but setting unfair laws and rules is not only unacceptable but also a terrible way and reason.

After Microsoft owned GitHub, a lot of Iranian users were banned from using it because of U.S. trade laws. A lot of people from different countries are still unable to use private repositories or buying GitHub plans.

What might they do? Storing nuclear codes or programs in private repos? This is what I’m talking about. A lot of rules and limitations are only ridiculous. I wrote about the GNU+Linux distro Fedora and the notice on its download page before. What? Iranians may use Fedora to build a nuclear bomb and they won’t download it because if this notice?

Some rules are only stupid and ridicules. They are discriminatory and offensive to human beings. Currently, the software community of Iran is experiencing a lot of difficulties and suffers from these discriminatory laws.

I believe discriminatory laws should not be respected. We should not obey them. We should fight for better.

About IndieWeb

If you follow this blog using your web browser, you probably realize blog’s theme and some other stuff are changed. My blog is now compatible with IndieWeb via these changes. You probably saw the “IndieWeb” links in the footer before, those links will forward you to another member of IndieWeb randomly.

The IndieWeb is a people -focused alternative to the “corporate web”. IndieWeb is a community of individual personal websites, connected by simple standards, based on the principles of owning your domain, using it as your primary identity, to publish on your own site (optionally syndicate elsewhere), and own your data.

IndieWeb tries to help people make their domain their primary online identity. This can help us to have our own identity no matter what services we use and no matter the services we use last or not. Our domains are our passports to IndieWeb.

IndieWeb has its principles to build a community of individuals who don’t want to be owned by corporate web. This community tries to have its own freedom and independence.

Read more… “About IndieWeb”

Do as you say to make people believe you

One of the problems in the libre community is that some (or many) people still use proprietary and nonfree software while they’re encouraging others to use free software.

It was few years ago that It’s FOSS reported that Jim Zemlin, the executive director of The Linux Foundation, is not using a [GNU+]Linux desktop and uses Apple’s macOS. This is what I’m talking about.

How can we expect people to use free software on their computers when some of the key people of libre community are using proprietary software? There’s a lot more than that.

I know many people who are using GNU+Linux desktop and only run free software programs on their personal computer but also use some proprietary stuff such as Microsoft’s Xbox.

We can’t be free software advocates and use proprietary software too. If we believe in software lire, we should use free software always. Free software is not just about operating sytstems such as GNU or libre kernels such as Linux.

If we believe in a libre community we should avoid proprietary stuff all the time. Liberating our community and devices is not something easy nor cheap. It’s something hard and necessary. We should fight for it and sometime sacrifice some stuff, such as some of our hubbies, to make people believe it can be achieved.

We can achieve complete freedom for our world and software if we all support free software and libre community and if we avoid proprietary stuff.

Some people say that achieving this goal is far or dreamy. Even if it’s true, it’s not a good reason for us to use proprietary stuff. Being far from our goals only means we should put more effort to it and continue fighting for it.

If a sculptor finds a hard rock, it won’t stop making sculptures. It’ll put more effort and tries more to prepare the hard stone to make a brilliant sculpture.

Always using free software is not being an extremist

I only use free software. There’s not a single proprietary software on my computers, well except for some nonfree blobs on the Linux kernel on my phone which runs LineageOS. The thing is that some people consider me a free software or [GNU+]Linux extremist.

Always and only using free software is not being an extremist. First of all, free software users and advocates don’t use free software to oppose other software, we use free software because it respects us and gives us freedoms.

Using free software puts your computing in your hand so it’s you that controls the computer. Using proprietary software puts your computer in control of you and your computing.

Secondly, there’s always a free software to use instead of a nonfree software. There’s a lot of freedom respecting programs to use instead of proprietary software to satisfy your computing needs.

I always use free software because it’s respecting me. Imagine a person who only has friends who respect that person. Is it being an extremist? Of course not. People won’t call that person an extremist because it has respect for itself.

Using free software and privacy-respecting services is the same. We’re not extremists because we respect ourselves. Instead of nonfree (free as in freedom) and privacy-violating services, we respect ourselves and use free (as in freedom) and privacy-respecting services.

I agree that only using free software has its own problems. For example, completely libre operating systems (such as PureOS GNU+Linux distro) may not be compatible with your hardware or not many people may use Mastodon instead of Twitter and Facebook but for us, at least, it doesn’t matter because we respect ourselves more than we feel need for these services.

I may leave the whole digital life one day but as long as I’m living this digital life, I’m living it with respect and freedom for myself and I believe you should too.

Apple’s encryption is not enough

Apple encrypts your data but Apple also can easily look at your files and information, exactly like FBI, CIA, NSA, and other agencies. Apple can look at your photos, read your private notes, save a copy of your messages and chats, and follow up your communications easily.

Apple does encrypt your data but only with its own private key. Your sensitive data are not encrypted with your own key, rather with what Apple controls. It means whoever encrypts the data (in this case, Apple) can also decrypt them.

Apple is very proud of its privacy policies and advertises a lot about it but what Apple doesn’t explain about this encryption, is how it works.

Apple dances around the encryption saying that your data are encrypted “in transit” and “on server” but this encryption is as unacceptable as Zoom’s, Facebook’s, or Google’s encryption.

While ago, Zoom announced that it’s going to encrypt users’ data “end-to-end” only for paying users and a lot of people complained about it. If what Zoom does is wrong, so is Apple.

iCloud and our device backups hold a lot more of our sensitive, private data than our video calls do, and over a much longer time-span.

Zoom doesn’t end-to-end encrypt the contents of individual calls. Apple fails to end-to-end encrypt your entire device backup, which contains your complete message history for every single iMessage and SMS conversation you have ever had on the device, without time limitation.

Free software/free culture does not accept discrimination

Update: After reading the full notice on Fedora download page, Mr. Stallman says that Fedora didn’t require users to promise anything therefor it’s not a violation of free software terms.

If you study it carefully, it does not require the downloader to promise not to do certain things. Rather, it requires the downloader to affirm awareness of these US rules, which may or may not apply.

Because of this, it does not contradict the GPL.

However, as our discussion shows, it is easy for people to misundestand and get the wrong idea about what it actually requires. They mey THINK it requires something that would violate the GPL even though it actually does not.

Richard Stallman

Original note:

Following my email message to Mr. Stallman, I had a lot of other discussions with different people but I think the best response was from Mr. Stallman himself.

He stated that the notice on Fedora download page makes it nonfree and the limitations are not compatible with GPL license.

Here’s Mr. Stallman’s email message:

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden’s example. ]]]

> I believe parts of this notice are violations of software freedom. The notice says that Fedora complies with “Unites States Export Administration Regulations (the =E2=80=9CEAR=E2=80=9D) and it’s prohibited for use in connection with the design, development or production of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, or rocket systems, space launch vehicles, or sounding rockets, or unmanned air vehicle systems.”

As stated, that would make Fedora nonfree. However, Fedora cannot impose such requirements on GPL-covered programs unless Fedora has the copyright.

The GNU Project encryption programs were developed outside the US and I think users get them without passing through the FS.

> The other part says “You may not provide Fedora software or technical information to individuals or entities located in one of these countries or otherwise subject to these restrictions.”

Isn’t it a violation of freedom 2 (The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others)?

Yes, it would be — but I don’t think anyone can enforce it on you if you are outside the US and you download Fedora. That is why I did not make a fuss about it.

> So does that mean that I, a typical user of free software, am restricted from using and distributing a software that is licensed free? Do you and free software movement accept this discrimination?

The reason for section 8 is to prevent patents from being used to make a program effectively nonfree.

If in country C some company Q threatens to make the program priorietary by suing the users using Q’s patent, that would in effect make the program proprietary.

Using section 8, the developer can say, “You can’t make my program proprietary. With section 8 I make it not available at all in country C. Give my program liberty or give it death!.”

In other words, “I’d rather destroy my program than let you turn it into your proprietary product.”

RMS's email regarding Fedora's discrimination and violation of software freedom terms.

Does free software/free culture accept discrimination?

Update: Mr. Stallman responded.

A while ago I wrote a blog post about moving from Fedora. After a lot of discussions with my friends, I finally decided to send an email message to Mr. Stallman about Fedora’s notice. I’m now waiting for Mr. Stallman’s response. Here’s my email message:

Dear Dr. Stallman,
Howdy.

Mr. Stallman, I’m a free software activist for more than 7 years now and I’ve using free software since I found out about the concept of software freedom. There’s not a single proprietary software in my computers. I even didn’t have a smart phone till a year ago. My phone currently runs LineageOS.

My operating system was Fedora untill I found out about a notice on Fedora GNU+Linux distro download page. https://getfedora.org/en/workstation/download/

I believe parts of this notice are violations of software freedom. The notice says that Fedora complies with “Unites States Export Administration Regulations (the “EAR”) and it’s prohibited for use in connection with the design, development or production of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, or rocket systems, space launch vehicles, or sounding rockets, or unmanned air vehicle systems.”

Isn’t it violation of freedom 0 (The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose)?

The other part says “You may not provide Fedora software or technical information to individuals or entities located in one of these countries or otherwise subject to these restrictions.”

Isn’t it a violation of freedom 2 (The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others)?

The four freedoms doesn’t mention any country or specific software so I believe the terms of software freedom are applicable to all software no matter what country they’re based in.

A friend of mine told me that section 8 of GNU General Public License version 2 accept this discrimination.

“8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License. “

So does that mean that I, a typical user of free software, am restricted from using and distributing a software that is licensed free? Do you and free software movement accept this discrimination?

All my life, I fought for freedom. I’m an Iranian and I live in a country that basic human rights are violated and I fought for freedom and my people’s rights in the streets with my bare hands. If free software movement, FSF, and you sir, accept this discrimination, I no longer will fight for free software as it’s just a lie to me.

I know that companies and maybe projects based in U.S. should comply with USA’s laws but it’s not a good reason for discrimination like this. If free software can be restricted for some people or it can only be used by a group of people a country or a company chooses, then I believe free software movement is not what it says it is.

I remember you once said that free (as in freedom) software leads us to a free society. If this freedom is only for some people, then it’s just a lie, isn’t it?

Can you please explain to me and my friends how free software movement reacts to this?

Thanks a lot.

Ali Reza Hayati

New hackers need to focus on everything; not only computers

I know a lot of hackers. I, myself, am a hacker but being a hacker doesn’t just mean infiltrating other people’s systems (those are crackers ). If you do hacks, you’re a hacker.

For example, few years ago when I was backpacking I had trouble opening a glass of pickles. What I did was to use a spoon to lower the pressure between the lid and the glass and when the compressed air was released, I opened it.

That was a hack. A simple hack to open a glass. Hacking doesn’t just mean sabotaging or entering security holes.

But what I want to talk about is not hacking itself. I want to talk about the life of hackers, specifically computer hackers. A lot of computer hackers, for example programmers, dedicate their lives to and focus on computers.

They talk about operating systems, security, privacy, codes, hardware, etc. and only a few of them really pay attention to society. Few of them talk about politics, or nature. We see less and less hackers talking about plastic problems in world.

Of course there’s people who are interested in technologies that help mother nature but there’s not a lot of them. New hackers, mostly, think that being a computer guy means leaving every other subject in life; and that’s wrong.

The hacker community talks about everything. They value life, just like other people. Being hacker doesn’t mean that you should dedicate your life to computers. Politics, nature, people, global affairs, etc. all matter.

New hackers and the hackers community need to focus on life. We don’t live in computers, we live in a world full of people and everything affects us like others.

If world runs into a global crisis, like a pandemic, we all should do what we can. We’re not robots and computers, we’re humans so we should do what humans do.