One of the motivations behind this website was being exposed to the nature of the software licensing. In the 70s, it used to be that all software adhered to these principles: everyone that used certain software could modify it and share the modifications. If a modification was deemed useful, it became an accepted patch to an existing program. There's an extended history here that needs explaining to understand the perspective found on this website. Perhaps that will come at a later date. For now, a quote from GNU.org:
GNU General Public License
“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.
You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.
With that in mind, access to any digital system that pertains to participating in society in a normal manner should be facilitated by software that adheres to these principles. Why? Because otherwise we will be digital subjects to billionaires that buy platforms and restructure and rename them as they please. A single corporate entity halfway across the globe—or indeed just its sole owner—is able to exert full control over the digital communications of different societies across the world. It might decide at a whim to exclude people and ideas or enforce cultural values of its own, rather than serve the society that uses such tools. Any large scale digital system can only be a trusted part of the whole of human society if used in line with these principles.
It is the belief of this website that continued use of the non-free method of software development (and especially AI) is going to be a catastrophe for future generations. Is it economically profitable in the short term? Most certainly. But so was the use of oil for energy in the early 20th century. Not to mention plastic as a by-product of oil. The use of artificial fertilizer created with nitrogen was also seen as a great way to improve food production. And all that is now turning out to be problematic as well.
Initiatives such as the UN Open Source Principles support this vision for governance-related software.
