<html><body>
<br /><blockquote>Wed Oct 29 2008 7:38:33 pm GMT from Bjoern Schiessle to "P.B." <br />Subject: Re: firefox, iceweasel, burningdog, icecat, ...<br /><br />...<br />People who have no problem adding non-Free Software to their browser<br />probably don't care that much about having a complete free operating<br />system and/or browser. So they are probably not the main target group of<br />IceCat.<br /> </blockquote><p>I enjoy the irony of the idea that free software should not allow people to be non-free; reminding me of the US burn-the-flag debate on whether or not flag burning should be a constitutionally supported expression of free speech given that burning a flag sort of opposed the principles of the country and constitution.</p><p>But I agree with most posters that free software needs to become relevant to people to whom software freedom is not yet relevant and Ithink that this will be done by being relevant in other ways which first means solving-the-problem at hand.</p><p>To me whether or not iceweasel should support non-free flash is another incarnation of the older question: Should Stallman have used a non-free compiler to develop gcc? The answer NOW is "yes" because it clearly DID lead to more freedom, so there is no debate; but the debate is still on about whether or not non-free flash is important. For certain: those who say it should not be supported are those who value a C compiler more than a flash player, but the same is not true for many of those who are yet to embrace free software and whose entry will be delayed until it meets ALL their needs but only if WE insist on it.</p><p>Sam </p>
</body></html>