, and do understand the value of his strong
underlying philosophy.)
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Ilya Shlyakhter <ilya_...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 02:19:29PM -0500, Ilya Shlyakhter wrote:
>> [..], so the FSF's caricature
>> of non-free software authors'
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
"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
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,
"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
heir judgement?
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Ilya Shlyakhter <ilya_...@alum.mit.edu> 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 pr
themselves. Shouldn't the FSF be similarly altruistically
concerned about the users, and respectful of their judgement?
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Ian Kelling <i...@fsf.org> wrote:
>
> Ilya Shlyakhter <ilya_...@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
>> FSF guidelines discourage r
FSF guidelines discourage referencing non-free software:
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/References.html#References
I see some problems with this, and think it'd be better if the
standards addressed these questions head-on.
To me, this prohibition looks like simple protectionism.
