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
gn
> Also, why it's ethical not to write the program at all (giving users
> _no_ freedom to do anything)
Because proprietor is not ‘giving’ or ‘presenting’ freedoms to users, he is
*returning* it.
Naturally users do have their essential rights, it’s a copyright law that takes
them away, establishi
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
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
"it's ethically a no-no (from a free software perspective)" -- I was
hoping to better understand _why_ it's unethical to even inform at
least FSF-literate users about a non-free program.
Also, why it's ethical not to write the program at all (giving users
_no_ freedom to do anything), but unethica
> 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.
Who knows, who knows, time flies faster than one might realize. I, t
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 pro
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 t
(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, a
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 o
"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 beO
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 h
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.
_
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, t
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
"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
>>> 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-
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 "referencin
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
ones. 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? If the
arguments are as ironclad as the FSF thinks, users will heed them; but
why not have the users decide whether the arguments are good?
My q
ete 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. What is the
harm, exactly, of referencing non-free s
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 protecti
23 matches
Mail list logo
