Re: referencing non-free software

We strongly recommend people to not use non-free software simply by not mentioning it. We don't cater to software that tries to destroy computer user freedom, there is no point and is counter productive to our goals. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Re: referencing non-free software

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

Re: referencing non-free software

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

Re: referencing 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

Re: referencing non-free software

(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,

Re: referencing non-free software

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

Re: referencing non-free software

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

Re: referencing non-free software

"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

Re: referencing non-free software

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

Re: referencing 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.

Re: referencing non-free software

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,

Re: referencing non-free software

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

"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

Re: referencing non-free software

>>> 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

Re: referencing non-free software

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

Re: referencing non-free software

Ilya Shlyakhter writes: > 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. >

Re: referencing non-free software

(sorry, previous message had some typos -- fixed below) 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

Re: referencing non-free software

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 would think that the right way is out-compete proprietary