If you put a statement before the first thread, saying “Our policy is not to identify non-free programs, since doing so could lead more people to use them, and we would thus be contributing to their success” then it will be easy to explain. Just send the person a copy of that text, saying, “This is stated in the front page.”
Definitely Prog should say that non-free software is bad, but one can do this without mentioning any specific non-free program. In fact, that makes it more powerful.
While this kind of statement makes it clear you don’t think the non-free program is a good thing, readers who encounter the mention the non-free program might still go and use it anyway. A reader for whom freedom is not a priority might ignore the site’s negative opinion, follow the link, and become a customer for the program. If you don’t mention the specific program, this can’t happen.
Most users in our community have never even heard the idea that non-free software is ethically bad. They have only heard of the open source movement and its values; they think our goal is simply to make software “better” (technically). So this statement is important. To make it as visible as possible, I’d suggest putting it in every thread.
>>3
He dislikes licenses which are more free than GPL, such as MIT/BSD/Public Domain, which means that he'd probably not recommend open source software which has licenses much more liberal than GPL.
I do respect his opinion, but doesn't mean I agree with it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-11 19:52
>>3
That's a strawman. His idea is that users should control the software and that users should not have software masters. The fact of the matter is choosing non-free software is allowing a master to control one's computing.
>>4
He doesn't dislike liberal free licences, and in fact, would have little trouble condoning them; he'll put his support behind the licencing agreement if it permits freedom.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-11 20:40
Since GCC is GPL wouldn't using GCC to compile your code enforce you to use GPL for your code?
>>6
If you think this is true, you'll have to quote the GPL that says this.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-12 0:28
Come on, don't be ridiculous.
It is crucial that GCC's output is NOT GPL (or even LGPL) by default.
We want to lull the non-free oppressors into a sufficient sense of complacency that using GPL to further their non-free goals is acceptable. Then one day, they will mistake GPL for LGPL. It will be the day we strike. At our call, hackers, at our call.
>>17,18
Your answer shows that you're out of viable arguments. I will interpret it as your surrender.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-12 9:14
A reader for whom freedom is not a priority might ignore the site’s negative opinion, follow the link, and become a customer for the program. If you don’t mention the specific program, this can’t happen.
Sheeple can't be allowed to choose for themselves, obviously. That kind of freedom is not included in the GNU® Freedom™ package, and is in fact considered harmful.
>>23 one could, again paradoxically, reduce one's unfreedom by coming to desire fewer of the things one is unfree to do. One could become free simply by contenting oneself with one's situation. A perfectly contented slave is perfectly free to realize all of her desires.
The essence of "Free" Software!
>>22 Strawman. That isn't the argument made by RMS.
Stallman. I directly quote the words of the man.
>>23
GPL restricts negative freedoms too, I can't enter into a specific contractual relation with a developer of some unfree software because GPL forbids me, the fact that this developer, knowing that, wouldn't even begin to develop her software (so I don't have a positive freedom either) is irrelevant.
But yeah, in this case I can appreciate the exquisite perversity of the logic that says that censorship doesn't restrict people's negative freedoms since they don't know what they are missing.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-12 10:13
>>25 I can't enter into a specific contractual relation with a developer of some unfree software because GPL forbids me
No! It makes you free from unfree software, because unfree software restricts your "freedom"!
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-12 10:16
Unfreedom Plus Ungood. Selling software is doublethink good:bad, patenting software bad, selling good.
>>5 That's a strawman. His idea is that users should control the software and that users should not have software masters. The fact of the matter is choosing non-free software is allowing a master to control one's computing.
And that's a non sequitur. http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119762874930534
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-12 20:23
>>5 users should not have software masters
Yeah! When Stallman is your master, you dont need no other masters.
All we have is non-free hardware, non-free designs, non-free processes, non-free plastic cases, non-free machines. We drive non-free cars, we apply non-free chemicals in our clothes and in our bodies, we take in non-free medicines, we eat non-free food, we drink non-free soda. We invest in non-free funds, we are ruled by a non-free constitution -- or one that no one reads anyway, delegating our "freedom" to a lawyer --, we join non-free therapy groups, we even read non-free books -- who will assure the "freedom" in its contents?
Free software?
Why bother? Everything we consume in a sense is non-free.
>>25 Sheeple can't be allowed to choose for themselves, obviously. That kind of freedom is not included in the GNU® Freedom™ package, and is in fact considered harmful.
RMS doesn't make that argument; his argument is that promoting non-free software cannot lead to freedom. Freedom is defined as the individual having the right to live freely (freedom 0 and freedom 1) as well as the right to live as an upstanding citizen (freedom 2 and freedom 3); therefore, to choose non-free software means the user chooses to live subject to a master and the user chooses to be divided from their friends.
I can't enter into a specific contractual relation with a developer of some unfree software because GPL forbids me, the fact that this developer, knowing that, wouldn't even begin to develop her software (so I don't have a positive freedom either) is irrelevant.
No, copyright law forbids you from distributing GPL code that isn't GPL compliant. GPL only gives more freedoms and copyright law restricts the freedoms by default.
>>29
What do you mean? How does one not follow the other?
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-14 2:23
>>31
Free software means that users are permitted to sovereignty over ones computing as well as the freedom to live as an upstanding citizen.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-14 2:24
>>31
Free software means that users are permitted to sovereignty over ones computing as well as the freedom to live as an upstanding citizen.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-14 7:15
>>34 Freedom is defined ...
So, as I said, the freedom to surrender some of your freedoms is not included in the GNU® Freedom™ package, and is in fact considered harmful. Sheeple should not be allowed to exercise it and it would be best if we censored the very notion of it out of existence.
No, copyright law forbids you from distributing GPL code that isn't GPL compliant. GPL only gives more freedoms and copyright law restricts the freedoms by default.
Ha ha ha.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-14 7:49
The FSF know most of their software (with some notable exception) can't compete on the strength of its quality, reliability, or performance. That's why their branding is all about their values, instead of their quality. We are more important than the Kernel or the user-facing programs, hence the OS should be called GNU plus Hurd (or Linux). Emacs is the best text editor because the only other text editor that exists is Nano. The GIMP is the industry standard software for all photographers and digital artists.
>>37 the freedom to surrender freedom
Cool slave mentality bro.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-14 9:04
>>37
Like I said before this is a strawman. You're attributing things to us that we don't do like this mythical GNU freedom package. I have no idea what sheeple are and what that has to do with censorship so I'll call that a red herring.
freedom to surrender some of your freedoms is ... in fact considered harmful
This is non-sense. Having a choice is not the same as having freedom. Asking people to consider proprietary software is just like asking people to become a prisoner in a prison colony, or asking for debt bondage: they may have a choice to enter, but making that choice inherently means they cannot have freedom so therefore in order to be free, they cannot make that choice.
>>38
Can you cite anything by the FSF to confirm that assertion?
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-14 10:36
>>39 Cool slave mentality bro.
Sure. Accepting the fact that I'm not free to smoke wherever I want also demonstrates slave mentality. Or that I'm unfree to take any food I want without paying. Or that I have to fulfil contractual obligations to my employer. Or that I shouldn't shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. You are such a freethinking rebel, bro!
This is non-sense. Having a choice is not the same as having freedom.
Having a choice is the definition of freedom. No choice -- no freedom. There are a lot of different freedoms, and the freedom to choose which ones to surrender in order to exercise others is amongst the more fundamental ones.
However, since you are brainwashed to the point where you not just reject freedoms not included in the GNU® Freedom™ package, but can't even recognize any of them as freedoms, this discussion seems quite pointless to me.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-14 10:46
>>41 Having a choice is the definition of freedom. No choice -- no freedom
No, choice does not mean freedom. If I captured you and ask you how you want to die - electric chair, firing squad, impaling, hang-drawn-quartered, bomb - no choice you make would ever result in your freedom.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-14 11:03
>>42
There's no such thing as the freedom, or the state of freedom, you poor brainwashed American. The only way to become absolutely free is to put a bullet through your head.
There are degrees and kinds of freedom though.
Having a choice in the matter of my execution certainly makes me more free than not having such a choice.
When this cruel world captures you and asks to choose between paying your bills or being cut off from the electrical grid, having such a choice makes you more free, both immediately and because you might consider one of the options as yielding more freedoms (or, more important freedoms) than the other, based on your subjective needs and attitudes, so your choice might be different from the one that some unkempt hippie might insist on making for you.
>>43 Having a choice in the matter of my execution certainly makes me more free than not having such a choice.
Cool slave mentality, bro!
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-14 11:33
>>44 *Giggle*. If I wanted to rob a people of their freedoms, a good start would be to convince them that there are only two possibilites: freedom and slavery, with no gradations between them. Then as I would take their freedoms one by one, with draconian viral licenses and mandatory anal inspections, each time I would point out that it is done in the name of Freedom, and since they are not slaves yet and even have some of their other freedoms somewhat increased, then what I took from them cannot be a real freedom, can't even be called "freedom". And everyone who is concerned about these false freedoms must be an enemy of the Freedom.
To the point where even the idea that there's no such thing as "the Freedom" would sound like an incomprehensible nonsense to my thralls, and they would label an obvious observation that having a choice makes you more free than not having a choice as a product of "slave mentality".
>>45
No, seriously, you have slave mentality. Of course there are gradations of freedom. Freedom to drive on either side of the road is different from the freedom to expect to not have a lot of head-on collisions.
Nevertheless, you suck the cocks of the software overlords. Enjoy proprietary bullshit like the rest of the slaves, drink their loads and ask for more.
>>46
I release all my own code under ASL, you silly cocklover. Implications are left as an exercise for the reader ;P
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-14 23:35
>>40
I can cite everything the FSF has ever said. Of course they won't just all act evil and tell it the way it is, they talk about freedom with a straight face instead of discussing their values branding in public. But all the citations you'll ever need are here: [1]