On 12/14/07, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > People already know about non-free systems such as Windows, so it is > unlikely that the mention of them in a free package will tell them > about a system and they will then switch to it. Also, switching > operating systems is a big deal. People are unlikely to switch to a > non-free operating system merely because a free program runs on it.
Quite right; they're more likely to stay with the non-free system, since the kind people at the FSF have helped make such useful free packages run on it. > Thus, the risk of leading people to use a non-free system by making a > free program run on it is small. However, it is our practice when That's one risk; the flip side is the risk of preventing people from exploring free systems by making the non-free systems so cozy. Is this hard? >From where I sit, few people do more than the FSF to minimize the cost of staying with non-free systems. If all free software developers were to follow the lead of emacs, nobody would have any reason to switch from proprietary systems - everything useful would just run on windows, or osx, so why bother switching? > doing this to remind people that the non-free system is unethical and > bad for your freedom. If the pages about the Emacs binaries for Windows > don't say this, I'll make sure to add it. Maybe you should consider doing this sort of thing (including, say, checking the license on SSH before declaring it GPL-incompatible - the "as far as I know" prophylactic is weak at best and disingenuous at worst) before lecturing the world on ethics. You know, physician, heal thyself? One might argue that is extremely unethical to declare that System X "encourages" non-free software while presiding over an organization that goes to such lengths to make non-free software useful. Sort of like campaigning for women's rights while beating one's wife. FWIW, I not fanatical about either side, and the ad hominem attacks appall me; I'm just very surprised (and discouraged) by what I see as the fundamental inconsistencies in your position, to the point where I have to wonder what your real purpose is. Sincerely, gregg
