Re: referencing non-free software

[J.B. Nicholson]

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 them.


Ilya Shlyakhter wrote:

""A GNU program should not recommend, promote, or grant legitimacy to
the use of any non-free program."  I don't understand what "grant
legitimacy" means here.


Even the quote from the URL you supplied comes with other language that 
provide clear context which addresses your own question, as does the text 
indicating how nonfree software may be mentioned (which I quoted earlier in 
my first response to this thread).


You appear to have chosen the wrong definition of 'legitimate'. Consider 
"Conforming to known principles, or established or accepted rules or 
standards; valid." from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/legitimate instead: 
Granting legitimacy to a nonfree program in GNU documentation includes 
stating something in a way that makes that nonfree program appear to be a 
reasonable and proper choice without any language explaining how 
proprietary software is unethical.


The principles of this definition are laid out for you not only in 
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/References.html#References but 
in many essays on https://gnu.org/philosophy/ and many recordings on 
https://audio-video.gnu.org/.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: referencing non-free software

[Francesco Ariis]

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 programs are property
> offer two arguments in support of their claims to own programs: the
> emotional argument and the economic argument.

the "emotional argument" being applicable here (at the risk of
being wrong again, I did not find that specific beOrg quote via
a customary search; I am ready to concede he will licence it under
a free-software licence once users start to flock in numbers).
I think it is unfair quote to the FSF, as they worked very hard to
dismantle the `libre == gratis` equivalence. :)

I am not going to be embroiled in this any further; *some* of the
arguments you made in this and the orgmode ML threads seems to come
from an open-source perspective.
Again, nothing wrong with it, but when it's ethically a no-no (from
a free software perspective) and practically dubious (i.e. is there
any evidence people are turned away from Org because because of it?),
I can see how the developers aren't impressed much by the pitch.



___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: referencing non-free software

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

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 the
> FSF pages explaining why".  How could this be reasonably seen by
> users as an "endorsement" of the non-free beOrg, if we explicitly
> say we recommend MobileOrg, and provide the beOrg reference only to
> give users all relevant information?

By the way, as of now this very appendix [0] clearly endorses Dropbox, whose 
website cannot be even be read properly without using nonfree software, what to 
say about being properly used!  And whose installable client is nonfree too, of 
course.

| For a server to host files, consider options like Dropbox.com
| account. On first connection, MobileOrg creates a directory
| MobileOrg/ on Dropbox. Pass its location to Emacs through an init
| file variable as follows:
|
|(setq org-mobile-directory "~/Dropbox/MobileOrg")

The only ‘alternative’ it mentions is ‘to use webdav server’.

[0] 
https://orgmode.org/manual/Setting-up-the-staging-area.html#Setting-up-the-staging-area

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: referencing non-free software

[Ilya Shlyakhter]

(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, and do understand the value of his strong
underlying philosophy.)

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Ilya Shlyakhter  wrote:
> 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 one
> of them" -- It's a direct quote from
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html .
>
> "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.  If "it's obvious
> how nonfree software harms the user", then, after being pointed to
> non-free software along with a warning of its harms, users will
> obviously choose "even buggy and less featureful free software" over
> its non-free counterpart.  They will then be using free software
> deliberately, which I'd think is the kind of activity the FSF would
> want to encourage.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.  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 ban would have
> the benefit of disproving such interpretations.
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Francesco Ariis  wrote:
>> 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 one
>> of them
>> -F
>>
>> ___
>> gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
>> gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: referencing non-free software

[Ilya Shlyakhter]

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 one
of them" -- It's a direct quote from
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html .

"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.  If "it's obvious
how nonfree software harms the user", then, after being pointed to
non-free software along with a warning of its harms, users will
obviously choose "even buggy and less featureful free software" over
its non-free counterpart.  They will then be using free software
deliberately, which I'd think is the kind of activity the FSF would
want to encourage.

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.

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.  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 ban would have
the benefit of disproving such interpretations.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Francesco Ariis  wrote:
> 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 one
> of them
> -F
>
> ___
> gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
> gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: referencing non-free software

[Francesco Ariis]

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 one
of them
-F

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: referencing non-free software

[Ilya Shlyakhter]

"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 beOrg.  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 the FSF pages
explaining why".  How could this be reasonably seen by users as an
"endorsement" of the non-free beOrg, if we explicitly say we recommend
MobileOrg, and provide the beOrg reference only to give users all
relevant information?

"there is a practical value in being economical with words.
Documentation needs to be concise" -- I'm not suggesting that we
include the full FSF manifesto in the Org manual, just a reference to
it.  The MobileOrg section is already in an Appendix.   Adding a
footnote to the Appendix mentioning beOrg and linking to the FSF
manifesto would hardly lengthen the 300-page manual.

""A GNU program should not recommend, promote, or grant legitimacy to
the use of any non-free program."  I don't understand what "grant
legitimacy" means here.  "legitimate" means "conforming to the law or
to rules."  What rules is this talking about, exaclty?   If rules
means something like "FSF ethics code", then the caveat described
above would dispel any notion that beOrg meets FSF ethics or is being
recommended.  I've seen scientific software packages point to
competing solutions for the same problem; I never read that as a
recommendation, but as the author being confident in his own package
and putting the overall scientific enterprise above his own ego.

beOrg author said: " I may in the future look at a free software
license but only once it is in a more complete state and I've
determined how beorg will be self sustaining in terms of revenue.
There are some examples of apps which follow this model (such as Blink
shell)."  I'd guess that, were beOrg mentioned in the Org manual, its
usage would get to the "self sustaining" state much faster, so it's a
bit of a chicken-and-egg problem.  Btw, right now beOrg is free in the
app store, and accepts voluntary donations, 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.

I do see one strong argument against referencing a non-free program in
the manual: this could motivate the program's author to make it free.
But it does not seem dispositive.

The FSF guideline against "recommending or promoting" non-free
software is phrased as a guideline ("should", not "must"); and seems
limited to "recommending or promoting".  Is there flexibility in
practice, that would allow beOrg to be mentioned with an appropriate
caveat?  What is the FSF's response to the concern that not mentioning
competing software reduces the incentive to improve free software?
(And yes, I'm aware of
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Alternative ).



On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt  wrote:
> 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.

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: referencing non-free software

[Francesco Ariis]

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 happenstance, because you prevented them from
> finding non-free software, then they haven't really accepted your
> arguments.  How does that constitute the spread of FSF ideas?  An idea
> is accepted when alternative ideas have been seriously considered and
> consciously rejected, not when alternative ideas were prevented from
> being explored.
> 
> So the value of mentioning non-free software, along with a pointer to
> the reasons not to use it, is to ensure that any decision to use free
> software is made deliberately and consciously, after genuine
> acceptance of FSF ideas.

Even though I sympathise with your ideas, there is a practical value
in being economical with words.
Documentation needs to be concise and to the point, as a new user
I often feel overwhelmed; not sure docs are the best venue for
such matter
-F

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: referencing non-free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

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.

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: referencing non-free software

[Ilya Shlyakhter]

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, then they haven't really accepted your
arguments.  How does that constitute the spread of FSF ideas?  An idea
is accepted when alternative ideas have been seriously considered and
consciously rejected, not when alternative ideas were prevented from
being explored.

So the value of mentioning non-free software, along with a pointer to
the reasons not to use it, is to ensure that any decision to use free
software is made deliberately and consciously, after genuine
acceptance of FSF ideas.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt  wrote:
> 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

Re: referencing non-free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

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

Re: referencing non-free software

[Ilya Shlyakhter]

"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 an exercise of freedom.  Freedom means making
fully informed choices.  A "choice" to use a free program made simply
because you were unaware of a non-free one can hardly be described as
freely made.   Plus, users' awareness of the (technically better)
non-free program will incentivize the free program's authors to
improve it, an incentive currently lacking (and it shows -- the free
program has long languished at mediocre quality).

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> wrote:
 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 non-free program from users. ... Is the assumption here
 that users are unable to see their own best interests, even when
 presented with all the arguments?  ... If no, why not point users
 to both free and non-free alternatives and trust them to decide?
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>> My question grows out of the discussion here:
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2018-01/msg00036.html
>
> Just to be clear, as (I suppose) few of subscribers there are able to judge 
> about programs that run on iOS from their own experience.
>
> In this case, 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?

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: referencing non-free software

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

>>> 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 non-free program from users. ... Is the assumption here
>>> that users are unable to see their own best interests, even when
>>> presented with all the arguments?  ... If no, why not point users
>>> to both free and non-free alternatives and trust them to decide?
>>
>> ...
>
> My question grows out of the discussion here:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2018-01/msg00036.html

Just to be clear, as (I suppose) few of subscribers there are able to judge 
about programs that run on iOS from their own experience.

In this case, 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?

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: referencing non-free software

[J.B. Nicholson]

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 "recommend[ing], promot[ing], or grant[ing] 
legitimacy to the use of any non-free program" is hiding proprietary 
software. Proprietary programs don't go away because GNU programs don't 
legitimize their use. Your point also strikes me as remarkably one-sided 
and likely to benefit the proprietary programs the GNU Project encourages 
people to supplant with free software.



I would think that the right way is to out-compete proprietary software
on the merits (both technical and philosophical), so that users, having
had a full opportunity to evaluate the merits (technical and
philosophical) of the free and non-free programs for their task, choose
the free ones.
Which merits one picks helps determine the outcome of the comparison. The 
GNU Project was founded to favor software freedom and has long argued that 
even buggy and less featureful free software is a better choice than 
powerful and reliable nonfree software because software freedom is more 
important. On a practical level, it's hard to argue against that 
perspective because software freedom allows one to make free programs less 
buggy, more reliable, or add more powerful features. But no amount of 
programming labor or technical skill will make a nonfree program free.



What is the harm, exactly, of referencing non-free software, if the
reference is accompanied by links to the FSF's arguments against using
it?
Where is there a prohibition against GNU programs "referencing" nonfree 
software?


I see "A GNU program should not recommend, promote, or grant legitimacy to 
the use of any non-free program.". I also see that well known proprietary 
programs (such as a widely used nonfree operating system) can be mentioned 
and one can supply directions as to how to use the free program on said system.


I trust it's obvious how nonfree software harms the user and why an 
organization founded to supplying free software has no interest in 
recommending, promoting, or granting legitimacy to any nonfree software.



By protectionism, I mean artificially protecting free software from
competition by restricting knowledge of the alternatives, the way
countries protect domestic industries by restricting imports.


I believe nonfree software will still exist no matter what the 
documentation for free software says. Any perceived competition is in the 
eye of the beholder.


Also, but somewhat relatedly, can we expect proprietors to recommend free 
software to their users? It would be useful to those users to learn that 
they don't have to put up with privacy violations, backdoors, and the rest 
of the malware users are not permitted to fix.



"Look at any kind of website. How often do they discuss alternatives
to whatever their site is about." -- philosophy sites certainly do
discuss alternatives.


Positioning nonfree and free software as alternatives runs against 
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Alternative quoted below:



We don't describe free software as an “alternative” to proprietary,
because that word presumes all the “alternatives” are legitimate and
each additional one makes users better off. In effect, it assumes that
free software ought to coexist with software that does not respect
users' freedom.

We believe that distribution as free software is the only ethical way to
make software available for others to use. The other methods, nonfree
software and Service as a Software Substitute subjugate their users. We
do not think it is good to offer users those “alternatives” to free
software.


This is similar to the listed objection on the same webpage calling all 
writing "content" which suggests every piece of writing is interchangeable 
with every other piece of writing, presumably the only difference worth 
recognizing is commercial value. That's not the case, they argue, so we 
shouldn't use language which suggests that is the case.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss