El 11/03/13 21:33, [email protected] escribió: > OMGosh dude, you are difficult.
If you think I am difficult, how difficult do you think is promoting the use of only free software with some others' attitude of ignoring freedom's priority? > How do you propose we certify it? Do a careful combing-over of the > source code, or what? Check the code before recommending something that could be an attack on users' freedom. That is all! > VLC is already under a Free license, the source code can be obtained, > and it's popularly recognized as Free (so it gets included in > repositories of systems that carefully separate free and nonfree > software, like Debian and Fedora). All those factors alone make it > VERY close to certain that the software is indeed Free. Ditto the Opus > codec. I would be astonished if either one turned out to be proprietary. > About Debian and Fedora, their recent attitude has been to try to comply but not to make a big effort. Before it was plainly negative attitude towards freedom. Bythe way of your reasoning, we should not check anything and just wait until there is irrefutable evidence that it either contains non-free code or recommends it. Well, developers in Trisquel do a lot of work long before anyone reports this type of freedom bug. It is the least part of non-free software that slips through and not the other way around. Are you suggesting that Trisquel developers are not doing a good job by having this policy? > So yeah, please make like a Wikipedian and Assume Good Faith. That is a terrible example. Usually Wikipedia librarians do not assume good faith even if it is part of their code of conduct. You can check if you wish.
