Sorry, but I have to recommend you not to make this ruinous compromise.
Besides, the resources here are scarce, so we must stay together instead of
dividing.
A ruinous compromise is made when an alleged "free software" activist
recommends, installs or teaches how to use some non-free functional data
(software, documentation, translations, 3D models of practical use, color
profiles, 3D models with shaders, electronic spreadhsheets, hardware
*designs* (read: the hardware project), text fonts, sites which run non-free
JavaScript, sites which provide service as a software substitute, and so on),
or when he recommends non-shareable non-functional data (images, texts,
video, audio, 3D models for decorative use, and so on). A ruinous compromise
can also happen when this alleged "free software" activist acts according to
the free software philosophy *but* doesn't try to explain the four freedoms
that a just/fair and free digital society must have or that are assured with
the use of the reccomended/installed/taught functional data.
There is a possibility that, after recommending a free functional data (that
was reviewed and approved at the Free Software Durectory, or that was present
in at least one repository of a free system distribution like Trisquel,
Parabola, Guix, Ututo, and F-Droid (which is a "application store" for
smartphones and tablets, but is used by Replicant); then, after some time,
the data is no longer considered free for whichever reason. In this case, no
ruinous compromise was made. However, after the "freedom status update", if
the alleged "free software" activist continues to promote the non-free
functional data or non-shareable non-functional data, then there is room for
doubt.
