Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
indeed. it may sound strange but when there is no other option (and by that i mean *exhaustive* analysis finds no other option) i do not mind "crossing the line" into what would traditionally be viewed by software libre purists as "unacceptable territory" *IF* in doing so it is part of a long-term strategy to *REPLACE* the very thing being leveraged [to make money etc. etc.]
Richard Stallman (whose objection to non-free software should require no explanation) concurs, he has long said that installing and running non-free software is okay for the purpose of making a free replacement (see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html for his essay on this which includes a description of the limits of this methodology and rationale). Relatedly, he also has told University audiences that they should have reverse engineering courses (see https://audio-video.gnu.org/ for recordings of his many speeches). I agree with him on both points for the same reasons.
After all, once the reverse engineering is complete the free replacement should suffice to do the practical jobs and then the non-free, user-subjugating components should be removed in favor of using the free replacement.
for example: many software libre supporters flatly refuse to even *install* Windows NT... but if i had taken that attitude i would not have broken the NT Domains protocol, over 20 years ago.
I imagine this was and is also true for the Samba team. _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list [email protected] http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to [email protected]
