On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:42 AM, 0 <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't think *freedom* means anti-proprietary.
Yes, if you are not talking about *software* freedom. Even though it might > advocate the use of free software over proprietary software, I don't > think it intends to ban the usage of proprietary software. No one is banning the usage of proprietary software here. Rather, the companies that make proprietary software play cheap tricks to ensure that computers are not usable without those proprietary software. And the intention of the free software movement is to protect users from such a lock, by developing free software equivalents. To give an > example, NVIDIA provides its proprietary drivers for Linux and I use it > because it works best for my hardware. So, the first thing I do after > installation is nuke nouveau. This does not mean I have forgotten the > point of free software. > > IMHO, If someone wants to use a proprietary product with FOSS, so be it, > denying this right to him/her would indeed be against the FOSS philosophy. There is no single thing called FOSS philosophy, there is *Free software philosophy* and *Open source philosophy* which are very different, though the technical definitions sound almost the same. If you really want to understand the difference, read this quite long story [1]. [1] http://blog.vigneshnandhakumar.in/transcript-of-rms-talk-at-mit-chrompet/ -- Vignesh Nandha Kumar _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
