The censorship Gab has faced from those in the Fediverse directly conflicts with the Four Essential Freedoms of Free Software which people in this community supposedly uphold. Most notably, censoring Gab goes against the first of these freedoms – “the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.”

How does F-droid not hosting the gab project oppose 'the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.'? You can still run it all the ways you would like it to run.

F-Droid is the one making use of the zeroth right: They choose to run their hosting service the way they like it.

The whole article seems to be written by someone looking up FOSS on wikipedia for 2 minutes and being frustrated that someone/group dares to have their own opinion (lol, free speech) about something.

Gab has responded to F-Droid’s decision by branding them as cowards and announcing plans to fork F-Droid’s repository.

Yeah they are total cowards for having their own opinion, boo!

The statement of F-droid is cut short in this analysis before it gets to:

We think, however, that one needs to differentiate between platforms and tools. By its very nature, free software by definition allows users “to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish”. Because of this, any restriction implemented in free software is basically ineffective, because people can modify the source code and remove those restrictions. We respect Tusky’s decision to block mentioned website; it’s their right to introduce restrictions like these into their software. We also respect Fedilab’s decision not to hardcode a login block; instead they are actively working on making it easier to block certain domains in the app itself and thus giving users more power to moderate which content they’ll see. If people disagree with F-Droid’s decision not to flag Fedilab, a idea is to develop a decentralized tag system based on package IDs which allow third-party servers to share their own warnings with their community.