I don't mean to spam the list, but there are some additional thoughts maybe worth sharing.
I put up with my own non-free use because I know my escape route is already planned and being developed. My data isn't stuck in proprietary systems. Although my some of the hardware is, I'm willing to sacrifice it. While I suspect I'm not in the situation of most people RMS was speaking of, I think the root in both cases is that non-free systems appear to offer more liberty (in the users own terms) than available free systems. I suspect this also relates to many users not able to see or affect their employers wider interests. "Proprietary systems may be in the employers best interests but it will make my job harder now."; like my council IT department. Some local council employees wished to help publish our community newsletter. I indicated that they would need to use open office; they tried to get the software but their response was: "I have had many discussions with our IT department and they have decided not to download Open Office on to my system as it is similar to word and will cause too many problems to my system." How can you deal with attitude like that? In the IT department too! "Too many problems" is very subjective and often means "it's too much trouble to find out" or "too much trouble to think about change" and depending on IT policy maybe it is. So in the matter of freedom, the efforts to be free sometimes clash with existing loyalties. An individual may cut those ties to avoid taint but also lose the chance to bring the organisation "with them" later. Freedom always comes down to politics. Sam _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
