>What is moderate free software? Having access to the source code but not too much?
Thanks for asking. My postulate would be having access to binaries.
You can achieve the four user freedoms with binaries to some extent. Mathamtically Freedom(source)>freedom(binaries)>freedom(SaaS)
You can use software for any purpose with a binary. You can study software, although in a less efficient manner, with a (complete, offline) binary. You can modify the software with a binary! You can share software with a binary.
To give a concrete example, Users can share WhatsApp, if a user doesn't have Whatsapp, it sends a link to their phone through SMS to download the application , you can also share the installer files on desktop. The right to share is not infringed. That said, you are not allowed or empowered to modify Whatsapp. This is a distinct type of partial freedom which is easier to concede, that some of the freedoms can be infringed. Whereas the stronger claim above is that even a single freedom can be partially fulfilled.
I think that's my motive, to recognize that WhatsApp isn't the Devil as a 0.5 star rating would suggest. Extremism goes even against the very goals of the ideology, as it's very hard to take seriously if it requires so much dedication and extreme stances, it's much easier and reasonable to ignore free software than it is to accept is tenets completely or moderately. Make it more moderate and achieve more penetration.
You can't possibly maintain software in good conditions without the source code. You've lost the ability to take your software with you and stop relying on the provider, unless you rewrite it.
More penetration of something which has lost its substance seems useless.
I would say if WhatsApp is a good baseline for you w.r.t freedom, there's nothing more to do: any gratis software does the job, and most software is already gratis. You get Big Tech-controlled users with ad and tracking-ridden software, and you seem happy with this.
You are probably not even allowed to share WhatsApp binary (likely disallowed by the EULA), and as for studying the software, you are probably not allowed to disassemble the binary (also prohibited by the EULA). It's as non-free as it can get. There's also nothing moderate about disallowing these things.
I don't see anything to be happy about in this deal.
The meaning you have of moderate is "please don't alienate Big Tech and force them to let users have the minimal control of their computing". Poor Big Tech, I feel for them. Yes, that's not a nice thing to say, but you are calling perfectly reasonable, non-violent, harmless opinions "extreme". I hope you reconsider.
Thanks for asking. My postulate would be having access to binaries.
You can achieve the four user freedoms with binaries to some extent. Mathamtically Freedom(source)>freedom(binaries)>freedom(SaaS)
You can use software for any purpose with a binary. You can study software, although in a less efficient manner, with a (complete, offline) binary. You can modify the software with a binary! You can share software with a binary.
To give a concrete example, Users can share WhatsApp, if a user doesn't have Whatsapp, it sends a link to their phone through SMS to download the application , you can also share the installer files on desktop. The right to share is not infringed. That said, you are not allowed or empowered to modify Whatsapp. This is a distinct type of partial freedom which is easier to concede, that some of the freedoms can be infringed. Whereas the stronger claim above is that even a single freedom can be partially fulfilled.
I think that's my motive, to recognize that WhatsApp isn't the Devil as a 0.5 star rating would suggest. Extremism goes even against the very goals of the ideology, as it's very hard to take seriously if it requires so much dedication and extreme stances, it's much easier and reasonable to ignore free software than it is to accept is tenets completely or moderately. Make it more moderate and achieve more penetration.