> Copyright is irrelevant for the definition of Free Software. The fact is
> that I use a software and I don't have the four freedoms, therefore it's
> proprietary software, because all software that doesn't give me the four
> freedoms is by definition proprietary software. It doesn't matter if it
> is kept private or is released to the public.
It's for the defenition, but no to apply it to the reality, and that's why
we've copyright licenses.
It is not reasonable, nor common sense, that you demmand the 4 freedoms for a
software that you'r only accessing in someone else's computer. And altough that
may no be the exact case of that software, because you also run client side
code, to help presentation and other client side stuff, that is way more near
to access remote software than using it in your computer.
> I don't know the contents of this convention, but I searched through and
> didn't find the word patent. Could you please point me to relevant
> passage? Because this would mean that I can break any software patent by
> just referring to this convention.
I'm sory by confusion and lack of atention, I've mention the rong convention...
I was actually refering to the article 52º of the European Patent Convention.
> According to one of the biggest online shops in the world, the product
> sells quite well and has over 100 reviews there.
Well I don't buy on-line, neither most of the general poppulation.
> Well, than 7digital has to make the negotiations with the music labels.
> According to their website they offer only MP3, AAC and WMA. Canonical
> must be a big customer of them to get all 8 Million tracks in FLAC and
> OGG, if 7digital has them as WAV or similar already.
Canonical said that the questing reallated with some proprietary and patented
formats (and specified wma as an example) is being take careof. The
availlability in tottaly free formats will be another question addressed when
they can.
So I guess they feel that have power to pressure 7digital to make music
availlable in some formats, but not yet, to demmand files in the formats the
community wants. Maybe they need the eight of users to do so.
> That means, you are suggesting to install proprietary Software on the
> user's computer to convince the user that Free Software has the same
> functionality and that proprietary software is a bad idea. That's
> absurd!
No I'm not!
I wasn't sugesting nothing, I was recognizing that many people want to use
proprietary software (no matter the reason), others will use it because they
don't really have choice.
What I was stating is, that it's not the exclusion of methods to install that
non-free software, that will prevent people to do so, it will also not motivate
people to use Free Software. If you belive it will, you're as fool, or much
more naif, than people o create and deploy DRM to prevent people to be free.
I think, altough it is bad that they use proprietary software (for them and for
us due to it's network effect), it is preferable that they use it under a
environment where there's much more Free than non-Free Software, where they can
become more sensitive to freedom related questions, and change their previuos
decision of using proprietary software.
Making hard for people to use proprietary software, will only make them ungry
at the Free Software Community, and drive them away from our ideals.
I would never take the iniciative to sugest to install proprietary software
other than the exclusively necessary to run the computer with a Free Software
Operating System. And would never sugest to use a proprietary software
application.
I don't use proprietary software in any computer that it's my property (where I
can allways choose to do so). I don't even accept to employment to work with a
proprietary OS/environment on the workplace desktop/laptop and where the job
isn't using or develloping with Free Software. Even more, I wouldn't work in
IT, if I hadn't the chance to work this way. Therefore I would never sugest any
other people to use proprietary for any other reason than enabling them to work
in Free Software environment. And even on those cases I also sugest them more
care in future hardware purchases (and tell them wat I do to avoid hardware
problems/difficulties), and also sugest them that maybe they should complain to
the hardware manufacturer for not respecting their freedom. But I understand
that this is my personal ethics. I do demmand other people to have ethics, but
not exactly the same as mine.
I allways sugest first people to use Free Software only. But I accept, altough
not be happy about it, that by now and in some cases, for some people, to use
more Free than proprietary software, under a Free Software environment is
better than using only proprietary software, or some Free Software under a
proprietary environment. And I belive that people who do this compromise to use
a Free Software environment are much closer to use only Free Software, than
they would if we had made their lifes harder than it is by using proprietary
software.
So this is not a strategy I would promote, but in cases where necessary I
do/will fall back it. Ubuntu and Canonical don't promote, or sugest, or even
force, people to use proprietary software, but enable people who want to use
it, to use it. That might be a small difference, but to me it's an important
difference, it also enable people who don't have a choice to use what they have
to.
cumpliments
Diogo
P.S.: I'm sory if I have been unpolited, It's not my intention...
--