UPDATE

capitalist_software.md

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ A ridiculous example of capitalist software is the most consumerist type: [games
 But how can possibly a [FOSS](foss.md) program be abusive? Let's mention a few examples:
 
 - **Allowing [maintenance](maintenance.md) cost to be high** and prioritizing e.g. [features](feature_creep.md) leads to program being expensive to maintain which discriminizes against developers unable to pay this maintenance cost. If a rich corporation intentionally makes their program bloated and expensive to just maintain, it ensures no one poor will be able to fork the software and maintain it, which effectively removes the possibility of an ethical competition being made our of their "open source" program.
-- **[Bloat](bloat.md) and intentional [obscurity](obscurity.md) may lead to de-facto (as opposed to de-jure) limitations of basic [freedom conditions](free_software.md), despite a free license**. Specifically freedom 1 (to study the software, which may be unnecessarily difficult and **expensive**) and 2 (to modify the software, which requires its understanding, unnecessarily high cost of dealing with bad code and the ability to compile it which may be non-trivial). Therefore a company may, on paper, provide the rights to study and modify their program, but keep the actual know-how of the program's working and modification private, de-facto becoming the program's owner and sole controlling entity.
+- **[Bloat](bloat.md), intentional [obscurity](obscurity.md) and [update_culture](update_culture.md) may lead to de-facto (as opposed to de-jure) limitations of basic [freedom conditions](free_software.md), despite a free license**. Specifically freedom 1 (to study the software, which may be unnecessarily difficult and **expensive**) and 2 (to modify the software, which requires its understanding, unnecessarily high cost of dealing with bad code and the ability to compile it which may be non-trivial). Therefore a company may, on paper, provide the rights to study and modify their program, but keep the actual know-how of the program's working and modification private, de-facto becoming the program's owner and sole controlling entity.
 - **Allowing [proprietary](proprietary.md) [dependencies](dependency.md)**, especiall in [open source](open_source.md). While free software usually avoids this, open source if happy with e.g. Windows-only programs which of course requires the users to run abusive code in order for the program to function.
 - **Unnecessarily high [hardware](hardware.md) demands and dropping support for old hardware** which drives [consumerism](consumerism.md) and discriminates against poor people and people who just don't want to "consoom" hardware. A group can make "open source" software that intentionally requires the latest hardware that they just happen to sell (e.g. [gaymes](game.md) with "AAA graphics"), even if the software might in theory run on older hardware. Possible "fixes" of this by third parties can be prevented by the above mentioned techniques.
 - **Allowing [bloat](bloat.md) to increase the risk of security vulnerabilities and bugs** (which may in some ares be fatal and lead to literal deaths).

license.md

@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
 # License
 
-A license is a legal text by which we grant others some rights that we hold over certain work. For our thing a license is what enables us to legally implement [free (as in freedom) software](free_software.md): we attach a license to our program that says that we grant to everyone the basic freedom rights to our software with optional conditions (which must not be in conflict with free software definition, e.g. we may require [attribution](attribution.md) or [copyleft](copyleft.md)). We call these licenses *free licenses* ([open source](open_source.md) licenses work the same way). Of course, there also exist [non-free](proprietary.md) licenses called [EULAs](eula.md), but we stay away from these.
+A license is a legal text by which we share some of our exclusive rights (e.g. [copyright](copyright.md)) over certain "[intellectual](intellectual_property.md)" works with others. For the purpose of this Wiki a license is what enables us to legally implement [free (as in freedom) software](free_software.md) (as well as [free culture](free_culture.md)): we attach a license to our program that says that we grant to everyone the basic freedom rights to our software with optional conditions (which must not be in conflict with free software definition, e.g. we may require [attribution](attribution.md) or [copyleft](copyleft.md), but we may NOT require e.g. non-commercial use only). We call these licenses *free licenses* ([open source](open_source.md) licenses work the same way). Of course, there also exist [non-free](proprietary.md) licenses called [EULAs](eula.md), but we stay away from these.
+
+At [LRS](lrs.md) we highly prefer [public domain](public_domain.md) [waivers](waiver.md) instead of licenses, i.e. we release our works without any conditions/restrictions whatsoever (e.g. we don't require credit, [copyleft](copyleft.md) and similar conditions, even if by free software rules we could). This is because we oppose the very idea of being able to own information and ideas, which any license is inherently based on. Besides that, licenses are not as legally [suckless](suckless.md) as public domain and they come with their own issues, for example a license, even if free, may require that you promote some political ideology you disagree with (see e.g. the principle of [+NIGGER](plusnigger.md)).
 
 Some most notable free licenses for software include (FSF: FSF approved, OSI: OSI approved, LRS: approved by us, short: is the license short?):
 

update_culture.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+# Update Culture
+
+Update culture is a negative trend in [capitalist software](capitalist_software.md) in which developers of a (typically [bloated](bloat.md)) program create constant and regular updates and force users to keep consuming these updates, e.g. by deprecating or neglecting old versions. This is typically manifested by a familiar message:
+
+*Your software is too old, please update to the newest version.*
+
+A typical example are [web browsers](browser.md) or proprietary [operating systems](operating_system.md).
+
+The updates are usually justified by "muh [security](security.md)" and "muh [modern](modern.md) [features](feature.md)". Users who want to avoid these updates or simply can't install them, e.g. due to using old incompatible hardware or missing dependency packages, are ridiculed as *poorfags*, idiots and their suffering is ignored. In fact, update culture is [cancer](cancer.md) because:
+
+- **It kills freedom**. E.g. with the example of web the constant meaningless updates of JavaScript and addition of "features" eliminates any small competition that can't afford to keep up with the constantly changing environment. **This is why we have no good web browsers**.
+- **It is a form of software [consumerism](consumerism.md)**, even if the updates themselves are gratis, they always come at a cost such as potential unstability, requiring new hardware, forcing installing more dependencies, required learning to use the new version, or even dropping of old features and malicious code in the updates.
+- **It is dangerous**, updates regularly break things, and there are cases where a lot depends on software running smoothly.
+- **The [security](security.md) justifications are lies**: a true concern for security would lead to unbloating and creating a minimal, stable and well tested software. Update culture in fact constantly pushes newly created vulnerabilities with the updates which are only better in not having been discovered yet, i.e. relying on **security by obscurity**. This creates an intentionally **endless cycle of creating something that will never be finished** (even if it well could be).
+- It is [bullshit](bullshit.md) effort, **wasting human work and creating an intentionally high [maintenance](maintenance.md) cost**. Humans, both users and programmers, become slaves to the software.