But don't you want users to choose free software consciously, having
considered your arguments that non-free software is "unethical and
immoral", and actively agreed with them? If users end up using free
software simply by happenstance, because you prevented them from
finding non-free software,
We aren't preventing anyone from using non-free software (that would
unethical!), we simply don't mention specific non-free software and
instead explain why it is bad. You are free to make your decision
based on that, but there is little to no value in mentioning specific
non-free software.
Ilya Shlyakhter wrote:
> All I'm suggesting is that beOrg be mentioned in the same appendix
> as MobileOrg ( https://orgmode.org/manual/MobileOrg.html#MobileOrg),
> along with a note saying "beOrg is currently non-free, we strongly
> recommend that users avoid non-free software, here is a link to
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 02:52:00PM -0500, 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
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html .
Touché. You left out:
> Those who benefit from the current system where
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 02:19:29PM -0500, Ilya Shlyakhter wrote:
> [..], so the FSF's caricature
> of non-free software authors' motivations (“I want to get rich
> (usually described inaccurately as ‘making a living’)") hardly
> applies.
Of the many things you can accuse the FSF of, this is not
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 02:19:29PM -0500, Ilya Shlyakhter wrote:
> [..], so the FSF's caricature
> of non-free software authors' motivations (“I want to get rich
> (usually described inaccurately as ‘making a living’)") hardly
> applies.
"Of the many things you can accuse the FSF of, this is not
(I hope it's clear that my respect for the FSF and its work goes
without saying. If I'm challenging its guidelines, it's to suggest
possible improvements, to put them on a better foundation, and to
better my own understanding. I've been reading RMS's posts on the MIT
CSAIL list for many years,
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 12:51:16PM -0500, Ilya Shlyakhter wrote:
> But don't you want users to choose free software consciously, having
> considered your arguments that non-free software is "unethical and
> immoral", and actively agreed with them? If users end up using free
> software simply by
We don't point users to non-free software because such software is
unethical and immoral. So there is little point in mentioning it.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
"We aren't preventing anyone from using non-free software" -- not
physically wresting it out of anyone's hands, sure; but by
deliberately refusing to mention beOrg in the Org mode manual, which
is the only place most users go to learn Org, we certainly are
preventing most users from considering
Please stop copying me on your replies, Ilya Shlyakhter. Both Reply-To: and
Mail-Reply-To: were set and pointed to gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.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
Ilya Shlyakhter wrote:
The only reason I see stated is "Proprietary software is a social and
ethical problem, and our aim is to put an end to that problem." What
I don't see explained is why hiding proprietary software from users is
the right way to end it.
I don't think that not
"the alternative that you found technically superior to another is the
nonfree one, and you expect that a user would most likely decide to
choose it rather than free one, when presented with all arguments, am
I right?" -- I expect that _some_ users will, yes. Which, in my
understanding, will be
>>> It's one thing to promote free software by creating a free program
>>> superior to a non-free one, pointing users to both, explaining the
>>> advantages of the free program (including the freedom part), and
>>> then letting the users decide. It's quite another thing to simply
>>> hide the
14 matches
Mail list logo