Tom Gillespie <tgb...@gmail.com> writes:
>> GNU packages should not steer people towards running nonfree software. >> As a consequence, they should not suggest people donate using payment >> services >> that _require_ the donor to run a nonfree program. > > A slight variant of Ihor's question. > > While GNU packages should not steer people toward nonfree software, > I assume that there is nothing that prohibits GNU contributors from > accepting donations via non-free systems. > > This thread suggests that it is no other option if devs also do not want > to steer people toward cryptocurrencies (which some consider to be as > ethically important as not steering people toward nonfree software). > > My question is whether the website for a GNU package can include links > to the websites of individual developers with a note that you can provide > financial support to the project by supporting individuals. In the end the > user still winds up using nonfree JS, but is GNU living up to its principles > by virtue of the extra layer of indirection? > > Given that https://www.fsf.org/about/ways-to-donate/ does include paypal > as an option, with a disclaimer, is a disclaimer not a sufficient solution for > GNU packages as well? Given that the FSF has a link to PayPal on their donations page , I think we can do the same for the org project. All that is required is that we do like the FSF does and put a bit of text beside it stating "Not recommended - requires nonfree Javascript". We should also include a postal address where people could send in donations to provide an alternative for those who really don't want to use the non-free service (which doens't have to be paypal of course - any of them would likely be as good). I also notice the FSF will also accept donations via credit card. There is no credit card processing service which is based on libre software, so the FSF is using non-free software to process those donations as well (I guess technically, they are not directly encouraging people use the non-free credit card processing service, but apparently it is OK for the FSF to use it to process those donations?). I do notice that RMS says "should not" rather than "must not", which I think provides some 'wriggle room'. Provided we provide some way to donate without using non-free software and state that we do not recommend using service XXXX which uses non-free Javascript (they all seem to at some level) and provided we are prepared to switch to a libre solution if and when one becomes available (which I doubt it ever will), we are probably OK. However, I am surprised that out of all the options, the FSF uses PayPal.
