<!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, On 02/11/08 21:09:
<blockquote cite="mid:87wsflbzse.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Sam Liddicott wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
How? (Maybe I'm missing something.) It would be probably possible,
but not feasible at that time.
</pre>
</blockquote>
As you say, it was probably possible, and feasable is a value-judgement.<br>
Of course free software aims were better served by not starting from
scratch.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87wsflbzse.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Stallman is allowed to have so-judged because it turned out to speed
up the development of free software.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
No, because it was the only way to go forward, </pre>
</blockquote>
? You just admitted that it was probably possible.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87wsflbzse.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">and he has thought a
lot about it. It was not an easy decision. </pre>
</blockquote>
if it was impossible it would have been an easy decision.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87wsflbzse.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Fortunately, nobody has
to face such dillema today.
</pre>
</blockquote>
This is the point we are discussing. <br>
I argue that for many, there are dilemmas of the same abstract form
today.<br>
<br>
You seem to suggest that they don't count BECAUSE those facing the
dilemma's are users, not developers of free software.<br>
<br>
This is true but wider acceptance of free software is a current problem.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87wsflbzse.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">But others aren't allowed to so-judge if it speeds up their adoption
of free software.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Please explain how excactly using the proprietary Flash plugin (or a
browser such as Firefox suggesting to install it) helps the free
software cause. </pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote cite="mid:87wsflbzse.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Does it help to develop a free replacement? No.
Does it help to establish alternative solutions (such as SVG, etc.)?
No.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I think you have helped identify the cause of our misunderstanding.<br>
I do not suggest that using proprietary flash plugin helps develop free
software.<br>
I do not suggest that USING it helps the free software cause either/<br>
<br>
I do suggest that if gnu/linux and iceweasel is used with non-free
flash that there are more free software users than if ms windows and
explorer are used with non-free flash.<br>
<br>
I do suggest that such users are (as much as they are willing at the
instant) escaping a situation where they might have been further
locked in had they kept using their old software.<br>
<br>
I do suggest that those willing to help users who currently feel that
they need at least this compromise are not enemies of free software,
but in fact supports who help the captive appreciate liberty as quickly
as they are able to do so, and protecting them from further lock-in.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87wsflbzse.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
And how is this in any way analogical to the other case: development
of a free compiler using a non-free one, at least until the free
compiler can build itself?
</pre>
</blockquote>
Because, as you say, the first aim of free software - free tools - has
been reached.<br>
<br>
Another aim of free software is the liberation; which cannot be done
merely by writing software, it requires evangelists; it means to win
the understanding of the ignorant, it requires teaching, and this is
quite a different problem, on with which the FSF is still becoming
acquainted; it's not something which comes naturally to techies who
themselves can learn better than be taught, and are not so good at
teaching.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87wsflbzse.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Picking analogies which support your position is useful to help explain
but doesn't convince;
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
You started the analogy, by saying it's a "reincartnation" of the "old
question". I claim that there is no "old question", and no
"reincarnation" at all. These two cases have nothing in common.
Absolutely nothing.
</pre>
</blockquote>
The first commonality is the value-judgement, or rationalization of the
compromise which occurs in both cases; strangely you both denied and
admitted that such a compromise occured in the early days of developing
the tools.<br>
<br>
The second commonality is that the compromise in both cases is over
whether or not making the compromise will advance the aims of the free
software movement. You seem to want to restrict the consideration to
whether or not it advances the development of free software, but that
is not the scope I am discussing; it also affects the introduction of
others to free software.<br>
<br>
I hope that you can recognize these two commonalities.<br>
<br>
The difference is that the second compromise may be made by those who
are not developing free software, but these have only lately become
aware of the free software movement. <br>
<br>
This group is recognizable more relevant to free software, as we see in
the changing of the meaning of the word "user" in the GPL3 as compared
to the GPL2. <br>
In the GPL2 user means someone who possesses and invokes the program as
evidenced by the change in the GPL3 which considers the user to be a
non-techie making use of a web service in which the program the user
does NOT posses is invoked on someone elses system.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87wsflbzse.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Absolutely, but thats just another way of saying that because you don't
appreciate someone else's requirements
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
No, I perfectly understand the requirements of those who need a flash
player, and that they are a vast majority compared to those who need a
compiler. In fact, 99% of the sites I have to visit at work require a
flash player. But it doesn't mean that one has to surrender; it's all
about how much one values her freedom. One can refuse to visit such
sites, even as an employee.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Lets not dispute about the language, but from my frame this is an
admission that you don't appreciate someone elses requirements. I don't
mind if you don't want to use those words, but I think we are in
agreement at least. It's not just about how much one values their
freedom, it's about how quickly one is capable of recognizing freedom.<br>
<br>
My young children are an example. Right now captivity is more
attractive to them. I do not want to teach them to hate freedom. So I
make a compromise which I feel will promote free software in their
life. I could refuse to let them visit such sites, FSF policy cannot
SIGSTP my children until gnash is ready.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87wsflbzse.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote 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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">You say this without being all of the people that you say this
against.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Sure. I'd wish I was at least one of these people, but I'm certainly
not. I base this on RMS and other people from the early era, and some
digging in the changelogs of GNU packages. Even if RMS makes such a
claim, which he does frequently in his speeches, he can't speak on
behalf of all GNU developers and contributors.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">SOME are out of prison, the ones who are still there don't recognize
it as a prison.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I agree, this is more correct.
</pre>
</blockquote>
cool. The issue I am trying to discuss is how these can effectively be
brought to appreciate free software; in a way that doesn't involve
waiting until everything they currently use has a free alternative.
This may involve me "tainting" myself as some would see it.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87wsflbzse.GNU's_Not_Unix!%25yavor@gnu.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Maybe, and nobody prevents you to use non-free plugins with an
entirely free browser such as IceCat. The purpose of IceCat is not to
drive users in using such plugins. That is why the GNU project cannot
recommend Firefox (also it's source contains some non-free bits, which
are cleaned in the IceCat package, and in Debian's Iceweasel).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Perhaps we can agree that users who don't yet understand freedom and
liberty are not enemies of the free software movement?<br>
<br>
Perhaps we can agree that those who help such people make compromises
that speed their migration to free software are also not enemies of the
free software movement.<br>
<br>
I think that this is all that was intended to be discussed here.<br>
<br>
Otherwise, see linus's blog:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html">http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html</a><br>
<br>
Things MAY be black and white, but what is the FSF going to do about
people who aren't there yet? We can't SAY the truth because they don't
understand it, when we SAY the truth it sounds like: "You can be free
and not able to do anything or stay the captive thrall of your vendor
and be able to do what you want to be able to do" which clearly is NOT
what we are trying to say.<br>
<br>
Sam<br>
</body>
</html>