Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Non-free software shouldn't be mentioned

Name: Richard M. Stallman 2011-12-11 18:07

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.

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-14 2:21

>>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?

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List