On 17/10/2022 18:54, Jean Louis wrote:

Though for that, we can't steer users to review non-free software as
that means to let them give up on their freedom.

I am unsure who has intention to steer users to non-free software. There was a message mentioning some application. I assume that the person was just unaware of strict rules. It will happen in future as well and I am against excessively aggressive reaction.

The person may be already familiar with that non-free apps. We had a chance to ask about features missed in free applications and actual experience. Perhaps the same tasks may be performed in a bit different and less obvious way and no modification of Org and Co is required. However you insist that we have to through away such possibilities and adding outcome from such conversations to web site is prohibited, so it makes it significantly harder to use obtained information in later discussions.

Better balanced position is necessary otherwise it would be just weakness in communication with people who do not care if some software is free.

I find it unfortunate that some people create proprietary software
that uses Org files.

It sounds like you regret about absence of a kind of vendor lock. File formats and communication protocols must be free. There are enough examples when free software can not be developed due to lack of specifications. Why would you expect cooperation from vendors if you wish to have fences at your side in similar cases?

It is more productive to consider proprietary apps as feature requests and to put efforts into improving of Org suite.

Reply via email to