<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=us-ascii" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Yavor Doganov wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:87tzasy495.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">sam.liddicott wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
You are comparing apples and oranges. RMS and other GNU developers
used non-free software in the beginning because there was no way to
solve the circular chicken-and-egg problem. Once GCC managed to
compile itself, GCC was used. The same can be said to a limited
extent for other essential packages, too.
</pre>
</blockquote>
This is my point; but each person in the world has their own idea of
what is "essential".<br>
<br>
And what you say isn't strictly true either; he could have
boot-strapped from scratch, but judged it wiser not to, which is also
my point. <br>
<br>
Stallman is allowed to have so-judged because it turned out to speed up
the development of free software. <br>
<br>
But others aren't allowed to so-judge if it speeds up their adoption of
free software. It seems to some to be better to let people get more
enslaved by the emerging set of proprietary traps than offer the hand
of friendship to those who can't quit cold-turkey.<br>
<br>
Perhaps by the time gnash is good enough for some, they will be
enslaved by silverlight? But if they aren't demeaned for using
non-free-flash they can move to gnash later without a worry.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87tzasy495.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
You can think of this like using the prison's tools to build a ladder
in order to escape from it. The whole development history of GNU is
just that -- replacing one non-free star with a free one.</pre>
</blockquote>
Picking analogies which support your position is useful to help explain
but doesn't convince; it just makes your analogy repeat your position
at best or look incomplete at worst. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87tzasy495.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Sometimes,
to build the next piece you really need other non-free tools, so the
only way to continue the effort is to resort to using them, at least
temporarily. </pre>
</blockquote>
Absolutely, but thats just another way of saying that because you don't
appreciate someone else's requirements that they don't warrant such a
last resort.<br>
Now you may really think that, which is fine, but I'm saying that THEY
think otherwise.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87tzasy495.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">TTBOMK, this did not happen since the 80's when all the
important parts of the toolchain already had free replacements. There
is no reason or justification whatsoever to use non-free software now,
</pre>
</blockquote>
You say this without being all of the people that you say this against.
Of course, how could you be them - but then what makes you so sure that
you are right that there is no reason or justification whatsoever. It's
just another way of saying that people who think they have these needs
are enemy compromisers - which is ok by THEM because they are not
trying to adopt the FSF position, it's we who want them to adopt it. To
them the FSF most relevant statement must not sound like: choose
between evil compromise and impossible inconvenience.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87tzasy495.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">especially based on this historical "argument". We're out of prison
for more than 15 years now, and we have the free tools to build
whatever we need, rescuing those folks who still wish to spend their
life (partially or not) in the cyber-jail.
</pre>
</blockquote>
No. SOME are out of prison, the ones who are still there don't
recognize it as a prison.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87tzasy495.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Using the proprietary Flash plugin cannot possibly lead to such an
escape, </pre>
</blockquote>
of course it can't<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87tzasy495.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">on the opposite -- you are only incresing the adoption and
dependency on this format, perhaps even pressuring your friends. </pre>
</blockquote>
This is misleading. If someone is moving to free software but keeps
non-free flash for a little longer, they are decreasing their
dependance on non-free software and formats even if they are prolonging
their dependance on ONE piece of non-free software. Don't you see that
it becomes a smaller problem. If they entirely stay with proprietary
systems they may get ensared by even more. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87tzasy495.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It
is also self-explanatory that using a non-free flash player cannot
help a free player to automagically appear from the mist, or to become
technically better if it already exists.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I think we don't share the same core position; I want to free people
who feel that they cannot help a free player automagically appear from
the mist.<br>
<br>
All captive creatures need to become acustomed to freedom before being
fully liberated.<br>
<br>
But then although I now specify ATI video cards in machines we buy, I'm
actually using proprietary nvidia drivers. Not using them doesn't
increase freedom or potential freedom, but supporting ATI does. And
whatever you wish, avoiding non-free drivers in our ubuntu machines at
work would also set back adoption of free software. But yet I know many
will hate me because we're not <i>already</i> using gnusense.<br>
<br>
Sam<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87tzasy495.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Reinhard Mueller wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Am Freitag, den 31.10.2008, 10:57 +0100 schrieb Andreas K. Foerster:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We are - at least I am - talking about the freedom of choice for
the users!
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The question here is to teach users to treat only freedom as a valid
choice. Becoming a digital slave should not be an option.
You can surely install all kinds of non-free plugins/extensions with
IceCat (as you can install many non-free packages on a GNU system) --
but what's the point in using it then?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Somebody who has to install and use the proprietary flash player to
view content (because, for example, gnash isn't able yet to display
it) does *not* have the freedom of choice.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Sure he has. He has the choice *not* to install and use that
proprietary flash player. I am still alive after making this choice,
so it works.
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Discussion@fsfeurope.org">Discussion@fsfeurope.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion">https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>