Please stop copying me on your replies, Ilya Shlyakhter. Both Reply-To: and
Mail-Reply-To: were set and pointed to firstname.lastname@example.org on my reply
which was sent only to the same address, the mailing list address. That's a
pretty clear sign that the poster doesn't want replies going to them.
Ilya Shlyakhter wrote:
"Of the many things you can accuse the FSF of, this is not one
of them" -- It's a direct quote from
I didn't write the text you quoted. Your posts in this thread are
needlessly confusing because you quote without attribution and you quote
multiple people in the same followup.
"Which merits one picks helps determine the outcome of the
comparison." -- but _who_ should pick the merits and do the
comparison? I'm suggesting it should be the users.
The users are free to modify their copies of free documentation and
distribute their modified copies. This discussion concerns what the FSF
will accept into GNU.
I understand the argument for preventing naive/unsophisticated users
from getting trapped into proprietary programs without a full
appreciation of the consequences. But most Org mode users would not
be in that category.
You're making claims beyond your knowledge. You also do this in another
post in this thread about where users go to learn Org mode. You would do
well to stop doing that and speak only for yourself instead of making
unbacked claims about what others know or what programs they're allegedly
prevented from using.
I have trouble understanding why it's unethical to point even
sophisticated and discerning users, fully capable of understanding the
problems of non-free software, to such software.
I think you're having trouble because you're reacting to your own
misstatement. I'm not aware of anyone besides you claiming it is unethical
to point users to nonfree software. You don't indicate where you get such a
notion and I see no such language in
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/References.html which is the
source you initially complained about. That page says proprietary software
is unethical ("Proprietary software is a social and ethical problem, and
our aim is to put an end to that problem."). That page also says that the
context of the reference to nonfree software matters.
A ban on such pointing has obvious cynical explanations (FSF just
doesn't trust any users' judgement, and/or wants to reduce the need to
compete with non-free software on technical quality). Loosening the
There is no such ban nor did you direct anyone to where GNU bans such
language. In fact, I've already provided a quote of a direct counterexample
ban would have the benefit of disproving such interpretations.
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/References.html has been
around for many years and I've never seen anyone raise your inquiry before.
Clearly you don't agree with GNU's guidelines or restrictions. But you
approach your disagreement in a way I find indistinguishable from someone
trying to use GNU documentation to promote or offer nonfree software
mentions as an alternative.
Perhaps you should consider that
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/References.html is clear as
stated and reread that page with a mind toward trying to understand what it
says. I bring this up because each of your posts to this thread consist of
you misstating something and then reacting to your own misstatement (that's
how you began this entire thread, in fact). You also appear to ignore
questions that challenge your misstatements. None of your followups suggest
you'll continue in a respectful manner.
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list