negative campaigning?

This was raised by Jonas in the thread about proprietary software, but it is a completely different topic, so I'm starting this thread about it: "we also don't do negative campaigning overall. We tell people they should use Free Software; we don't tell them what software they should not be

Re: negative campaigning?

On 07/26/2017 12:14 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > This was raised by Jonas in the thread about proprietary software, but > it is a completely different topic, so I'm starting this thread about > it: "we also don't do negative campaigning overall. We tell people they > should use Free Software; we

Re: negative campaigning?

Excellent topic; thank you for bringing it up. Avoiding negative language will help us become BETTER ambassadors of FOSS. Negative language creates negative feelings about us! We can simply take lessons from other industries facing the

Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?

# Jonas Oberg [2017-07-26 11:27 +0200]: Good point but not easy to answer. All services can be viewed with a Free Software browser but e.g. Facebook tries to convince you of downloading the non-free Messenger app (you cannot even write FB messages on your mobile browser anymore IIRC). LibreJS

Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?

# mray [2017-07-25 22:36 +0200]: Services that could potentially be harmful aren't the issue. It is about not explicitly stating that we know some of them *are definitively* harmful. Yet all we say is: "Be vigilant, somewhere danger is lurking!" I get your point and start to believe that we

Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?

Hi Max, > Good point but not easy to answer. All services can be viewed with a > Free Software browser but e.g. Facebook tries to convince you of > downloading the non-free Messenger app (you cannot even write FB > messages on your mobile browser anymore IIRC). LibreJS may also warn its > users

Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?

On 26/07/17 10:53, Max Mehl wrote: > Hi Jonas, > > # Jonas Oberg [2017-07-26 10:37 +0200]: >>> Some services are Free Software unfriendly and harm your privacy. >> >> Are there any services we list which don't work with Free Software? If >> so, >> I think it's best to state that: >> >> Some

Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?

On 26/07/17 10:42, Max Mehl wrote: > # Jonas Oberg [2017-07-26 11:27 +0200]: >>> Good point but not easy to answer. All services can be viewed with a >>> Free Software browser but e.g. Facebook tries to convince you of >>> downloading the non-free Messenger app (you cannot even write FB >>>

Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?

On 26.07.2017 10:05, Max Mehl wrote: > # mray [2017-07-25 22:36 +0200]: >> Services that could potentially be harmful aren't the issue. It is about >> not explicitly stating that we know some of them *are definitively* >> harmful. Yet all we say is: "Be vigilant, somewhere danger is lurking!" >

Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?

> In fact, I’m *really* _really_ surprised so many people agree > with using Facebook for spreading FLOSS values... guys???! +1 if the "person spreading FLOSS values" is a free/libre software activist/supporter/proponent, not simply a free/libre software user.

Re: Free Software security vulnerabilities: Heartbleed and other case studies?

Hi Hugo, Hugo Roy writes: > Any case studies on how the world dealt to react quickly and update > systems in reponse to Heartbleed for instance? I remember blackduck had some reports comparing FLOSS/non-FLOSS with respect to their security, I found this, but I’m sure there are