I see very good points on one side and another.. at this point do I
think why not..
I do know that there are also some free software that can be run...
lets put it this way. can we generalize and blame programs of been
capable or running non-free
when really they can run free software also.. or that the 4 uses that
REALLY will use them for free software should suffer the consequences
of some people that will DO use it to run non-free.
if we cut those legit free software users the right to have their
favorite distro(gNewSense) to run any free software is kind of defeat
the point.. I am very confused tors what will be best..
but in my case.. in case of doubt freedom wins.. and to have freedom we
can't deny those legit users to have to go around regular ways to use
some of this free software that is capable of running non-free
software...but they are really using it to run free software all together.
my 2 cents.
Chris Fernandez
Anthony Patarini wrote:
So, what is being proposed is that all Free Software that makes it
trivial for a user to use non-free software be removed? I don't think
that's a good idea at all. The issue with Firefox is that, by default,
it links to non-free extensions maybe available by the Mozilla website
itself (From Firefox clicking Tools -> Extensions -> Get More
Extensions takes you to this page.) However, it would still be trivial
to install non-free extensions by visiting the Mozilla website. The
problem is of course that non-free software is being offered and
suggested by the program itself. To my knowledge, WINE does not do
this. And there are many good Free Software programs that are
Windows-only at this point in time. Until recently my favorite FTP
program, Filezilla, was only available on Windows, so I had to run
Wine in order to make use of it. I was still using 100% Free Software,
though, so I see no problem in this. Making it more difficult to use
these programs makes no sense to me. Ndiswrapper is a bit more
troublesome, in that most of its purpose is to run non-free drivers.
However, there are Free Software drivers for ndiswrapper, and the idea
that you could write a Free driver that works on both Windows and
GNU/Linux intrigues me and reminds me of the wonderful technical
benefits of Free Software, less important as they may be. Ndiswrapper
itself does not suggest to users where they can acquire non-free
drivers. It's a compatibility layer, plain and simple, just like WINE.
They are both freedom agnostic - they don't restrict what you can run,
they just run it. Just like Mono, which can run Free and non-Free
software. Just like Python, my programming language of choice, can run
free and non-free code.
The issue at hand, unless I'm mistaken, is that included
software/documentation/etc. should not advocate or suggest the use of
non-free components. That's admirable. But to remove a component
simply because it is capable of running non-free code seems
self-defeating and even, on some levels, opposite the nature and
intention of Free Software in the first place.
If anyone feels I've missed something, please enlighten me.
rek2GNU/Linux wrote:
now that you clear it up I agree, maybe you are right, we should
stick to have a distro for
Free Software activist/advocates/like minded..... you name it..
Chris Fernandez.
http://www.binaryfreedom.info
Jorge Rodríquez wrote:
rek2GNU/Linux escribió:
first of all let me explain that I am from Spain, living in Boston
so my English is rusty and I talk in spanish like 90% of the day
since lot of people talk Spanish here in Boston :-)
now with that out of the way:
I have to agree with you that we should let the user choose to be a
"slave" or not, as long the software we provide is Free Software we
have nothing to worry about, hmm is like
a security tool, you can use it in many ways, to us to package it
and give it with the distribution cause is free software wont mean
that someone is going to use it for evil doing.. and even if they
do is their choice..
hope I get my point out. now if this package was not free then.. of
course is not going into the system, wine case is free software so
I vote that we indeed should include it also Samba. Samba sometimes
is usefull in many ways and that don't means people is *only* going
to use it to connect to non-free systems.. some people like to use
samba between GNU/Linux systems and others.
Chris Fernandez
I have to agree with you that we should let the user choose to be a
"slave" or not
according to I see it, the question is much easy.
People have the freedom to use windows, mac, ubuntu… nobody has the
obligation to use gns. But gns is not for "slaves", is for free mans.
That wine is not in the repositories does not prevent a user to obtain
it by other means. To include wine in the repositories signify to think
that the users of gns might to need a “windows emulator”.
Whitch is the target user of gsn? the normal user of “linux” will not
use gns.
The philosophy of gns is radical, is not “open source”, is for radical
users (like I)
We do not remain by halves, is my opinion.
Sorry for my bad English.
_______________________________________________
gNewSense-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
_______________________________________________
gNewSense-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
_______________________________________________
gNewSense-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
