-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
- Making market share the top priority:
Might be true. I *do* have the feeling of a slight sellout happening (e.g. Firefox), which causes loss of the actual vision - and a drift away from the "good cause".
Firefox is proprietary software. See: http://directory.fsf.org/project/gnuzilla/
*sigh* I know, I know... Mozilla's becoming similar to google: they're doing something good, but on the other hand they're pulling some strange stunts which makes me doubt to trust them (First it was the name, the logo and trademark problems, now it's non-free code in their binaries...)
Unfortunately it became incredibly confusing to follow the different kinds of pure-GNU firefox browser forks. I've spent a whole evening doing some reading about their differences, motivations, etc...
Seems like the info in my head is already outdated, because I've just encountered "IceCat", which I thought was supposed to be "IceWeasel". Now it's getting so damn confusing, that if you try to explain this to a regular user, they'll just roll their eyes, sigh, shake their head and walk away.
Why is this necessary [1]: "The gNewSense BurningDog browser and the Debian IceWeasel browser are similarly derived from Firefox, also with the intent of being free software. Technically, however, these projects are maintained entirely independently of IceCat. (Previously, this GNU browser project was also named IceWeasel, but that proved confusing."
What's really confusing is that I have 3 free browsers now! Why the fork? ...again?
HOWEVER: What should one do now?
Let's imagine a conversation where I encounter people, tell them about free software and it goes like this: (A... someone, B... me)
A: "Sounds great! Where can I get started?" I should now answer: B: "Hm... use a free browser. Get IceCat!" A: "Cool. never heard of it. I'm using Firefox" B: "it's not free software... please use IceCat" A: "ok. where can I get it?" B: "apt-get install icecat" A: "How do I do that with Windows?" B: "Oh. sorry. you can't use any free software with windows. You will never be able to gradually migrate to freedom. good bye."
I want things to be good. So I want things to be free (as in GPL). ...but I also don't want to end up grumpy and alone, completely incompatible with the rest of the world.
This is why I want the rest of the world to understand why FS is the best. What are your opinions regarding the Firefox/icecat issue here, when it comes to "spreading the word"?
Pb
[1] http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
"P.B." pb@fsfe.org writes:
What are your opinions regarding the Firefox/icecat issue here, when it comes to "spreading the word"?
It depends on who you're talking to.
Windows+Firefox is better than Windows+IE, but it's always worth mentioning that they can have complete freedom with GNU/Linux and IceCat.
I use IceCat. It's works grand, and I trust the project manager (more than I do for Firefox).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Unfortunately, there are 2 things which might make icecat a no-go for many people:
- I can't find it (or iceweasel) in the default ubuntu repositories. - As far as I've read, it doesn't support nonfree-flashplugin - only gnash. That's a killer.
Pb
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
"P.B." pb@fsfe.org writes:
What are your opinions regarding the Firefox/icecat issue here, when it comes to "spreading the word"?
It depends on who you're talking to.
Windows+Firefox is better than Windows+IE, but it's always worth mentioning that they can have complete freedom with GNU/Linux and IceCat.
I use IceCat. It's works grand, and I trust the project manager (more than I do for Firefox).
"P.B." pb@fsfe.org writes:
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
It depends on who you're talking to.
Windows+Firefox is better than Windows+IE, but it's always worth mentioning that they can have complete freedom with GNU/Linux and IceCat.
I use IceCat. It's works grand, and I trust the project manager (more than I do for Firefox).
Unfortunately, there are 2 things which might make icecat a no-go for many people:
- I can't find it (or iceweasel) in the default ubuntu repositories.
- As far as I've read, it doesn't support nonfree-flashplugin - only
gnash. That's a killer.
People who have no problem adding non-Free Software to their browser probably don't care that much about having a complete free operating system and/or browser. So they are probably not the main target group of IceCat.
Beside i want to mention that afaik using Firefox doesn't mean using non-Free Software necessarily. Afaik only the binaries you get from Mozilla contains non-Free Software like Talkback but you can build a complete free Firefox from the sources. E.g. Fedora distributes Firefox and they are committed to distribute only Free Software (with an exception for Firmware though)[1]. So i'm quite sure that their Firefox doesn't have any non-Free blobs.
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines
best wishes, Björn
Bjoern Schiessle schiessle@fsfe.org writes:
People who have no problem adding non-Free Software to their browser probably don't care that much about having a complete free operating system and/or browser. So they are probably not the main target group of IceCat.
Yes, but there is still some value in promoting IceCat to these people.
One reason why most Firefox users don't care about free software is that they've never even heard of free software. They will learn about it someday. If, when they learn about free software, they already use and rely on non-free plugins, then they will find it awkward to agree with our ethical stances. So if we can get people started with IceCat instead of Firefox, they will be more likely to value software freedom in the future.
But, getting them from IE to Firefox is still a big improvement.
doesn't have any non-Free blobs.
One problem is there non-free images (non-free trademark licence). If you want to publish a modified version of Firefox, you need the Mozilla Foundation's permission to use their images. So if you're using Firefox and you spot a security hole, you cannot fix it and distribute you're modified version (unless you also strip out and replace all logos and Mozilla Foundation trademarked stuff).
A second problem is that Mozilla Firefox prompts users telling then to install non-free plugins. So the software might be free the moment it's published, but it becomes a mix of free and non-free soon after a user starts using it.
Bjoern Schiessle wrote:
People who have no problem adding non-Free Software to their browser probably don't care that much about having a complete free operating system and/or browser. So they are probably not the main target group of IceCat.
True, but indirectly, it's not that straightforward (at least for me) 2 practical things to consider:
1) Isn't it so, that currently most people who don't care about Free Software, but still run GNU/Linux had their system installed & maintained by someone else?
Classic: A friend asks you to take care of his buggy Windows computer. You refuse to, and suggest trying GNU/Linux instead. Guess who'll setup the machine? :)
So what to do? If you setup a computer today without nonfree-flash, that's like the first call you're gonna get: "bohoooo... youtube... bohooo.... myspace.... bohooo... lunax sucks. nothing works" : (
It's bad that people don't see how much *is* already there, but unfortunately, that's my current impression - people are ungrateful and impatient. *sigh*
2) My computers are my showcases.
Friends and co-workers see what I'm using. If I can show them how convenient GNU/Linux can be for everyday work and other things (even editing Video!), they get the right impression. How often does it happen that, eg. at a party, someone says: "hey, could you open that youtube video... it's hillarious!" - if you can't, it's almost impossible to avoid them thinking "oh. it's because of this Lunax where things are painfully difficult and you can't do normal stuff on"
If my system can't handle things that visitors might request, they get the wrong impression that it wouldn't work for them *at all* - or that it's super-difficult (e.g.: A friend of mine checks mails and burns CDs on the commandline - no GUI. It's totally fine for him, but a lot of friends got the impression that this is how you do it with GNU/Linux ;) )
It's strange, but most people really think that their system will be like yours if the use Free Software. They're so used to uniforms that they have a hard time imagining individuality in the app & OS world.
Of course I tell them about Free Software, explain them the unfortunate current situation about non-free parts, etc...
Pb
Am Donnerstag, den 30.10.2008, 09:12 +0100 schrieb P.B.:
Friends and co-workers see what I'm using. If I can show them how convenient GNU/Linux can be for everyday work and other things (even editing Video!), they get the right impression.
Hmm.... I think the impression they get is a matter of communication:
a) GNU/Linux is good because a lot of proprietary software like Flashplayer or Adobe Reader runs on it b) Free Software is a nice toy but if you want to do the really cool stuff you have to resort to proprietary software anyway c) Free Software can do a lot, but there's still bastards that force me to use proprietary software, we must do something against that
I am well aware about *your* communication about this ;-) but I wanted to make this explicit for all readers: if you aren't carefule about this, it can backfire.
Thanks, Reinhard
"P.B." pb@fsfe.org wrote: [...]
So what to do? If you setup a computer today without nonfree-flash, that's like the first call you're gonna get: "bohoooo... youtube... bohooo.... myspace.... bohooo... lunax sucks. nothing works"
Before nonfree-flash, it was java; before java, it was acroread; before acroread, it was navigator; before navigator, I don't know, but I expect there was something.
I think this argument has even less weight today than ever before.
nonfree-flash mainly continues to be such a problem because of bad webmasters (usually under strong instruction from site owners) failing to use the type attribute correctly and/or using javascripts that only recognise the Adobe plugin.
Well, that, and that we can't persuade firefox to help fix free flash by always offering it as a preferred alternative to nonfree-flash.
[...]
almost impossible to avoid them thinking "oh. it's because of this Lunax where things are painfully difficult and you can't do normal stuff on"
I usually tell them "OK, this isn't really easy because that's a bad Windows(or whatever)-specific website" and that seems to work.
Regards,
Wed Oct 29 2008 7:38:33 pm GMT from Bjoern Schiessle to "P.B." Subject: Re: firefox, iceweasel, burningdog, icecat, ...
... People who have no problem adding non-Free Software to their browser probably don't care that much about having a complete free operating system and/or browser. So they are probably not the main target group of IceCat.
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.
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.
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.
Sam
sam.liddicott wrote:
[...] 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.
Sam
Definitely true. It *is* important for us to insist on alternatives, develop, demand and spread alternatives - but always apply common sense.
Sam's right: Freeing someone by limiting them is not good. "The freedom of choice", remember? (ok... someone might argue based on "freedom or power?" [1], but I think that it's something different here)
Pb
Am Thursday, dem 30. Oct 2008 schrieb P.B.:
sam.liddicott wrote:
[...] 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.
Sam
Definitely true. It *is* important for us to insist on alternatives, develop, demand and spread alternatives - but always apply common sense.
Sam's right: Freeing someone by limiting them is not good. "The freedom of choice", remember?
Who wants to limit anybody?
"Freedom of choice": The Free Software movement is working hard to develop alternatives, so that users do have the choice to live in freedom and to reject freedom trampling software.
The Free Software movement encourages to use only Free Software, but they cannot and don't want to enforce it. That really would be absurd.
If a Free Software program really doesn't support a non-free feature, the user is still free to choose a different program. It's not like IceCat is the only browser out there. ;-)
(ok... someone might argue based on "freedom or power?" [1], but I think that it's something different here)
Indeed, that is something different, but related. We are - at least I am - talking about the freedom of choice for the users! not about the "freedom for developers only".
Andreas, it seems as though you think recent posts were directed at you personally, and then seem somewhat indignant because the comments unjustly imply something about a position you hold.
I'm quite puzzled.
Recent comments (by me at least) are general comments directed to the whole list in the context of previous recent and ancient discussion here.
I've had discussion on this list with those who seem to think that migrating a company to free software via a temporary non-free-tool is a sin. That's the best context I can give you to help you understand the framing of my comments.
Otherwise it seems we generally agree; which is why I'm puzzled that you seem to think I am arguing against you; for which impression I apologise.
Sam
* Andreas K. Foerster wrote, On 31/10/08 09:57:
Am Thursday, dem 30. Oct 2008 schrieb P.B.:
sam.liddicott wrote:
[...] 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.
Sam
Definitely true. It *is* important for us to insist on alternatives, develop, demand and spread alternatives - but always apply common sense.
Sam's right: Freeing someone by limiting them is not good. "The freedom of choice", remember?
Who wants to limit anybody?
"Freedom of choice": The Free Software movement is working hard to develop alternatives, so that users do have the choice to live in freedom and to reject freedom trampling software.
The Free Software movement encourages to use only Free Software, but they cannot and don't want to enforce it. That really would be absurd.
If a Free Software program really doesn't support a non-free feature, the user is still free to choose a different program. It's not like IceCat is the only browser out there. ;-)
(ok... someone might argue based on "freedom or power?" [1], but I think that it's something different here)
Indeed, that is something different, but related. We are - at least I am - talking about the freedom of choice for the users! not about the "freedom for developers only".
Am Friday, dem 31. Oct 2008 schrieb Sam Liddicott:
Andreas, it seems as though you think recent posts were directed at you personally, and then seem somewhat indignant because the comments unjustly imply something about a position you hold.
I didn't take it personally. But, well, maybe I misunderstood you, but I saw your comment directed against Free Software.
I've had discussion on this list with those who seem to think that migrating a company to free software via a temporary non-free-tool is a sin. That's the best context I can give you to help you understand the framing of my comments.
Well, it's not a "sin", but I also doubt, that it is the best way to do it. Especially flash: there might be some few exceptions, but for most people and especially companys it is not vital to have flash content. It is merely a convenience. And when they get used to it... well that's bad. Because it doesn't lead to more freedom.
Again: I wouldn't want to forbid them to use it, but I also wouldn't help them to use it, because I think it is bad. And I would definetely reject it, if they tried to force me to use it!
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;
I strongly disagree that Stallmans use of a non-free compiler justifies the use of non-free flash. First, Stallman worked actively to solve the problem, while you seem to deny that it is a problem. Second: flash is for most users not vital. It is just a convenience. And last but not least: we do have a Free Software alternative in gnash. It might not yet support everything, but again: we are talking about mere convenience.
If someone really depends on flash content, well then it might be justified to use it *temporarily*. But you should watch out for better alternatives.
Am Freitag, den 31.10.2008, 10:57 +0100 schrieb Andreas K. Foerster:
We are - at least I am - talking about the freedom of choice for the users!
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.
It does of course make sense to give somebody who is chained to proprietary software by proprietary data formats or protocols as much freedom as possible, but telling these people that they "may" keep their left foot caught in a trap while they walk free with their right foot is "freedom of choice" isn't quite to the point, IMHO.
Thanks, Reinhard
* Reinhard Mueller wrote, On 31/10/08 10:38:
Am Freitag, den 31.10.2008, 10:57 +0100 schrieb Andreas K. Foerster:
We are - at least I am - talking about the freedom of choice for the users!
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.
in both senses :-) for having had to do it and for having done it (and possible for not being able to do it but "needing" to?)
It does of course make sense to give somebody who is chained to proprietary software by proprietary data formats or protocols as much freedom as possible, but telling these people that they "may" keep their left foot caught in a trap while they walk free with their right foot is "freedom of choice" isn't quite to the point, IMHO.
It's true, telling them that this is freedom isn't quite to the point.
But telling the that they are on their way to greater freedom may be to the point.
I'm not opposed to giving people as much freedom as they are able to handle. If they are able to appreciate it by degrees they may desire it by greater degrees.
Any creature in captivity must be accustomed to freedom before being made free.
Sam
Am Friday, dem 31. Oct 2008 schrieb Reinhard Mueller:
Am Freitag, den 31.10.2008, 10:57 +0100 schrieb Andreas K. Foerster:
We are - at least I am - talking about the freedom of choice for the users!
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.
It does of course make sense to give somebody who is chained to proprietary software by proprietary data formats or protocols as much freedom as possible, but telling these people that they "may" keep their left foot caught in a trap while they walk free with their right foot is "freedom of choice" isn't quite to the point, IMHO.
Okay, that's a different aspect. That's why I think, we should first strive for free format and protocols. That is what binds most people to specific software.
Flash is most often used for video and audio. Mozilla is going to implement Ogg Theora and Ogg Vorbis directly into the browser. That is a great idea - if it works.
Unfortunately I had very bad experiences with their Beta release. I tried it with the new audio-tag. And the sound was just a bad noise. The same file plays fine on every other player on the same hardware. I've sent a report to them. I hope they'll fix it, or else people will get a very bad first impression of Ogg Vorbis. :-(
If you want to test it: http://akfoerster.de/LinuxBug.html
Am Thursday, dem 30. Oct 2008 schrieb sam.liddicott:
Wed Oct 29 2008 7:38:33 pm GMT from Bjoern Schiessle to "P.B." Subject: Re: firefox, iceweasel, burningdog, icecat, ...
... People who have no problem adding non-Free Software to their browser probably don't care that much about having a complete free operating system and/or browser. So they are probably not the main target group of IceCat.
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.
I don't know how this is related to this discussion. Nobody here wants to forbid non-free software. And I do not know anybody who says so. We just encourage to use Free Software, but we don't force it on anybody.
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.
Who are these "most posters" who you refer to? I must have missed these postings, for I cannot find them. -- maybe P.B., but P.B. is not "most posters".
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;
He was working to write a freedom respecting replacement. That is good. The answer would have been the same, if he failed. It was worth trying anyway.
but the debate is still on about whether or not non-free flash is important.
Most people, who ask for non-free flash are not involved in the process of making it free.
And by the way: there is a free replacement now: http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ So thanks to the strong efforts of the GNU project we have the "freedom of choice" now.
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.
Again: I don't know whom you are referring to. AFAIK IceCat does work with the non-free flash plugin. The difference is only, that the default is a different plugin, ie. gnash, which is Free Software.
"Andreas K. Foerster" list@akfoerster.de writes:
Nobody here wants to forbid non-free software.
This is certainly a difficult question.
A complete ban would probably be bad for freedom, but there are some cases where a bad would be a good idea, such as in government offices and schools.
Less certain, even if everyone is free to develop and distribute non-free software (even if it's unethical), maybe a ban on selling non-free software would be reasonable.
Am Friday, dem 31. Oct 2008 schrieb Ciaran O'Riordan:
"Andreas K. Foerster" list@akfoerster.de writes:
Nobody here wants to forbid non-free software.
This is certainly a difficult question.
A complete ban would probably be bad for freedom,
That's what I meant.
but there are some cases where a bad would be a good idea, such as in government offices and schools.
They are not only deciding for themselves, but they are deciders for others. So this is indeed a different question.
P.S.: I admit that I was surprised at this answer from you.
"Andreas K. Foerster" list@akfoerster.de writes:
ciaran writes:
but there are some cases where a bad would be a good idea, such as in government offices and schools.
Oops. Typo: s/bad/ban/
My point was that non-free software should be banned in governments and schools.
(And further I was arguing that a complete ban on *selling* non-free would be worth considering, but that a complete ban on writing or publishing non-free software is probably going too far.)
Am Friday, dem 31. Oct 2008 schrieb Ciaran O'Riordan:
"Andreas K. Foerster" list@akfoerster.de writes:
ciaran writes:
but there are some cases where a bad would be a good idea, such as in government offices and schools.
Oops. Typo: s/bad/ban/
My point was that non-free software should be banned in governments and schools.
(And further I was arguing that a complete ban on *selling* non-free would be worth considering, but that a complete ban on writing or publishing non-free software is probably going too far.)
The terms "forbid" and "ban" are very strong words. I think, it is better to convince people than to force them. If you enforce it, you cannot call it "freedom" at the same time. That would be really hypocritical.
So we share the same goal, but we disagree on the way to reach it.
* Andreas K. Foerster wrote, On 31/10/08 09:25:
Am Thursday, dem 30. Oct 2008 schrieb sam.liddicott:
Wed Oct 29 2008 7:38:33 pm GMT from Bjoern Schiessle to "P.B." Subject: Re: firefox, iceweasel, burningdog, icecat, ...
... People who have no problem adding non-Free Software to their browser probably don't care that much about having a complete free operating system and/or browser. So they are probably not the main target group of IceCat.
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.
I don't know how this is related to this discussion.
The discussion raised the idea that free software might forbid non-free plugins for philosophical reasons, leading to the older question of whether freedom should support the right not to be free. In 1990 it was a hot topic on whether not not a free country should allow people the freedom to destroy the symbol of that freedom.
That's how it is related to the discussion. You may have to read the parent posts.
Nobody here wants to forbid non-free software. And I do not know anybody who says so. We just encourage to use Free Software, but we don't force it on anybody.
er... afaik nobody said anybody did. Your perspective in this response puzzles me. I'm not sure where "here" is or who the "we" is that you mention and whether or not I am included. I thought I was.
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.
Who are these "most posters" who you refer to? I must have missed these postings, for I cannot find them. -- maybe P.B., but P.B. is not "most posters".
I referred to recent discussion on whether or not users of non-free software were enemies of the FSF; hence the Stallman comment below.
The consensus I had observed (I don't mind if you don't agree) was that they are not enemies, but merely non-political in the issue and unable to see the relevance of free software.
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;
He was working to write a freedom respecting replacement. That is good. The answer would have been the same, if he failed. It was worth trying anyway.
We all know that - the point I was raising is the one you just made: which is that using non-free software is sometimes excusable when there is no suitable alternative.
but the debate is still on about whether or not non-free flash is important.
Most people, who ask for non-free flash are not involved in the process of making it free.
That is merely a reflection of the fact that techies who can work on software reasonably filled their own needs first, and managed to excuse themselves when living to their philosphy was very difficult but not impossible.
I merely recognize that non-techies are going to want to claim the same right, and as has been said recently it's better to be their friend than call them our enemy.
And by the way: there is a free replacement now: http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ So thanks to the strong efforts of the GNU project we have the "freedom of choice" now.
True, but this is not relevant to the philosophical question of using non-free software until there is an acceptable free alternative.
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.
Again: I don't know whom you are referring to.
I was using "those" in a general way. It means anyone who thinks that users of iceweasel with flash-non-free are enemies to free software. I don't know if this means you.
AFAIK IceCat does work with the non-free flash plugin. The difference is only, that the default is a different plugin, ie. gnash, which is Free Software.
Hurrah for that.
Sam
sam.liddicott wrote:
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,
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.
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. 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. 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, 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.
Using the proprietary Flash plugin cannot possibly lead to such an escape, on the opposite -- you are only incresing the adoption and dependency on this format, perhaps even pressuring your friends. 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.
Reinhard Mueller wrote:
Am Freitag, den 31.10.2008, 10:57 +0100 schrieb Andreas K. Foerster:
We are - at least I am - talking about the freedom of choice for the users!
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?
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.
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.
Yavor Doganov wrote:
sam.liddicott wrote:
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,
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.
This is my point; but each person in the world has their own idea of what is "essential".
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.
Stallman is allowed to have so-judged because it turned out to speed up the development of free software.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Now you may really think that, which is fine, but I'm saying that THEY think otherwise.
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,
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.
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.
No. SOME are out of prison, the ones who are still there don't recognize it as a prison.
Using the proprietary Flash plugin cannot possibly lead to such an escape,
of course it can't
on the opposite -- you are only incresing the adoption and dependency on this format, perhaps even pressuring your friends.
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.
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.
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.
All captive creatures need to become acustomed to freedom before being fully liberated.
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 /already/ using gnusense.
Sam
Reinhard Mueller wrote:
Am Freitag, den 31.10.2008, 10:57 +0100 schrieb Andreas K. Foerster:
We are - at least I am - talking about the freedom of choice for the users!
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?
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.
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 Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Sam Liddicott wrote:
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.
How? (Maybe I'm missing something.) It would be probably possible, but not feasible at that time.
Stallman is allowed to have so-judged because it turned out to speed up the development of free software.
No, because it was the only way to go forward, and he has thought a lot about it. It was not an easy decision. Fortunately, nobody has to face such dillema today.
But others aren't allowed to so-judge if it speeds up their adoption of free software.
Please explain how excactly using the proprietary Flash plugin (or a browser such as Firefox suggesting to install it) helps the free software cause. Does it help to develop a free replacement? No. Does it help to establish alternative solutions (such as SVG, etc.)? No.
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?
Picking analogies which support your position is useful to help explain but doesn't convince;
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.
Absolutely, but thats just another way of saying that because you don't appreciate someone else's requirements
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.
TTBOMK, this did not happen since the 80's when all the important parts of the toolchain already had free replacements.
You say this without being all of the people that you say this against.
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.
SOME are out of prison, the ones who are still there don't recognize it as a prison.
I agree, this is more correct.
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.
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).
* Yavor Doganov wrote, On 02/11/08 21:09:
Sam Liddicott wrote:
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.
How? (Maybe I'm missing something.) It would be probably possible, but not feasible at that time.
As you say, it was probably possible, and feasable is a value-judgement. Of course free software aims were better served by not starting from scratch.
Stallman is allowed to have so-judged because it turned out to speed up the development of free software.
No, because it was the only way to go forward,
? You just admitted that it was probably possible.
and he has thought a lot about it. It was not an easy decision.
if it was impossible it would have been an easy decision.
Fortunately, nobody has to face such dillema today.
This is the point we are discussing. I argue that for many, there are dilemmas of the same abstract form today.
You seem to suggest that they don't count BECAUSE those facing the dilemma's are users, not developers of free software.
This is true but wider acceptance of free software is a current problem.
But others aren't allowed to so-judge if it speeds up their adoption of free software.
Please explain how excactly using the proprietary Flash plugin (or a browser such as Firefox suggesting to install it) helps the free software cause. Does it help to develop a free replacement? No. Does it help to establish alternative solutions (such as SVG, etc.)? No.
I think you have helped identify the cause of our misunderstanding. I do not suggest that using proprietary flash plugin helps develop free software. I do not suggest that USING it helps the free software cause either/
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.
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.
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.
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?
Because, as you say, the first aim of free software - free tools - has been reached.
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.
Picking analogies which support your position is useful to help explain but doesn't convince;
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.
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.
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.
I hope that you can recognize these two commonalities.
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.
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. 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.
Absolutely, but thats just another way of saying that because you don't appreciate someone else's requirements
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.
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.
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.
TTBOMK, this did not happen since the 80's when all the important parts of the toolchain already had free replacements.
You say this without being all of the people that you say this against.
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.
SOME are out of prison, the ones who are still there don't recognize it as a prison.
I agree, this is more correct.
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.
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.
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).
Perhaps we can agree that users who don't yet understand freedom and liberty are not enemies of the free software movement?
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.
I think that this is all that was intended to be discussed here.
Otherwise, see linus's blog: http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html
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.
Sam
Sam Liddicott wrote:
No, because it was the only way to go forward,
? You just admitted that it was probably possible.
In theory anything is possible. Maybe it was possible not to use a non-free compiler too in the old days, perhaps at the cost of dealying the development of the OS for years, or going into a completely wrong direction, discovering that much later.
Of course, as you say, it is an assessment of pros and cons based on personal values (of the one making the decision).
It is one thing to modify GNU make to build itself without a `make' program at all. It is different to compile a compiler without an existing compiler, at least at that time. It is quite a bit different to _develop_ a compiler without being able to compile and test it in phases.
It was not an easy decision.
if it was impossible it would have been an easy decision.
Right, although any decision that is in conflict with the goal cannot be "easy", no matter the circumstances.
Fortunately, nobody has to face such dillema today.
This is the point we are discussing. I argue that for many, there are dilemmas of the same abstract form today.
I understand your point, and here we disagree: there is no reason for a user or developer or $insert_role_here to make such dillemas today. There are certain sacrifices you must do if you want to be a free computer user, and that will be the case for some years to come. The magnitude of these compromises is dimminishing very quickly.
You seem to suggest that they don't count BECAUSE those facing the dilemma's are users, not developers of free software.
No. I am a user myself, not a developer, so the most natural point of view for me is the user's.
I think that here you are making a fundamentally wrong comparison: the compromise back then was necessary for the development of the foundation blocks of the GNU system (which is, more or less, what distros install today as "minimal" or "standard" system). When you're missing one of those major blocks (such as libc, kernel, compiler, shell, binutils, build system, core utilites, etc.), you're in trouble.
Once you have those, you can build the rest without relying on non-free software at all.
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.
If you weigh on the quanitity, that is true. But it's an illusion. More free software users does not lead to our goal being reached faster or earlier.
Another aim of free software is the liberation; which cannot be done merely by writing software, it requires evangelists;
This is not another aim, it is the only aim.
If people do not recognize non-free software as a social problem, we have failed in our mission.
it means to win the understanding of the ignorant, it requires teaching, and this is quite a different problem,
Here is the main point of the whole disagreement: It appears that you think that if you manage to persuade a user or N users to switch to free software (enitirely free or not, it does not matter), that is a net win for the free software cause.
I say that this is nothing. Really. Free software will become more and more common, for various reasons -- one of them being that it is becoming technically better, and this process is fast. We don't have to do anything special about that; no efforts are required.
Users who switch to free software for non-philosophical reasons (like the company I work for, or my uncle) cannot possibly defend the cause or keep up the community, because they're ready to trade away the freedoms they have (because, as you say, they don't realize them and don't value them).
So what's the point in getting more users like these? The Open Source campaign is doing already enough in this regard. It is of course not a bad thing at all -- but it's not our goal as activists, and more importantly, does not help the mission.
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.
Refer to my explanation above wrt "must have foundation" and "the rest of the system". That is how the subsequent packages were developed (e.g. GNUstep, GNOME, etc.) -- nobody had really faced this problem. (I admit the presentation of my opinion was not clear, and maybe still isn't.)
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.
Yes. While this is obvious in the GCC case, I still can't see even a faint sign that it is in the example of Firefox + Flash.
it also affects the introduction of others to free software.
Such introduction does not help much (or should I say "at all") if these users do not embrace the values of the free software movement, and are not ready to fight for them. Suggesting them to treat such non-free software as acceptable only undermines the goal: they will be introduced to free software, and they'll be using it (mostly), but they won't value what they have and what they may lose. Such users are at constant threat of being enslaved again, perhaps even without noticing as they cannot spot the danger.
Lets not dispute about the language, but from my frame this is an admission that you don't appreciate someone elses requirements.
That's the namely the point: if a mere usage requirement leads to neglecting ethical principles, then these principles are not so strong or beleived in the value system of the person making the decision. Rather than weaking the principles, we'd better convince people that they're worth as they are.
It is strictly personal, and my opinion is that helping the spread and adoption of free software is a very small part of the job, as "thanks" to the open source guys the values of the free software movement do not spread at the same rate as the software.
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 do not refuse mine to visit any site they wish, I just explain them why they can't view certain content, and why I cannot install the software required to view it. I don't think they understand yet.
Perhaps we can agree that users who don't yet understand freedom and liberty are not enemies of the free software movement?
Of course, although without generalizing so much. Some of our outright enemies do not understand software freedom too.
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.
Those seem to be the open source people, mostly. I don't treat them as enemies, I just think that by rapidly "helping" people this way and speeding the migration, they are making our job harder. It was substantially easier a decade ago, when people already had to make conscious choice and a convenience sacrifice to use GNU -- and it was easier to persuade them, as they approached the issue with a clear mind, juding very often solely based on the ethical values.
http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html
Nothing new on the horizon; people insisting on software freedom are treated as extravagant creatures since at least 1998, if not before.
but what is the FSF going to do about people who aren't there yet?
It does lots of things in that regard; in fact almost all of its activities are diverted in that direction.
Yavor Doganov:
Users who switch to free software for non-philosophical reasons (like the company I work for, or my uncle) cannot possibly defend the cause or keep up the community, because they're ready to trade away the freedoms they have (because, as you say, they don't realize them and don't value them).
However, in my experience people realize their freedom once they have it.
If you are used to lock-in, as a "technological feature" as they sell it, you are not trying to escape it. However, even if you switch to free software for non-philosophical reasons, you later realize what it means; and over time you may understand why your using flash is a problem, both for you and for society. So turning completely-locked-in people to non-completely-free users is still a win for the movement, in my opinion.
I myself were looking for a low-cost unix back then, and install this strange "linucs" thing only because it costed nothing. Only later I appreciated what it implied, and I finally understood what rms was saying, even if I've been reading it before.
/alessandro
2008/11/3 Alessandro Rubini rubini@gnudd.com:
Yavor Doganov:
Users who switch to free software for non-philosophical reasons (like the company I work for, or my uncle) cannot possibly defend the cause or keep up the community, because they're ready to trade away the freedoms they have (because, as you say, they don't realize them and don't value them).
However, in my experience people realize their freedom once they have it.
As far as I can tell it usually takes them being screwed over at least once to realise that freedom is actually important. This is why "DRM-free" is now a positive marketing term for reaching non-technical users, e.g. http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20070705-00
The general public seem willing to sacrifice some freedom for convenience - e.g. iTunes, XP, Flash - but *not too much* - e.g. Vista.
I suggest the most useful practical thing at present is to promote free elements wherever possible, e.g. Firefox on Windows is the gateway drug to Firefox on GNU/Linux: using Firefox on an Eee is identical to using it on Windows.
Maintaining a firm position is useful, but behaving as though those less pure than oneself should be expelled is ... counterproductive.
- d.
* Yavor Doganov wrote, On 03/11/08 20:04:
Sam Liddicott wrote:
This is the point we are discussing. I argue that for many, there are dilemmas of the same abstract form today.
I understand your point, and here we disagree: there is no reason for a user or developer or $insert_role_here to make such dillemas today.
I think that it is these absolute statements that disturb me, which I will come to shortly, but your use of $insert_role_here should warn you that you are making broad claims about situations that you haven't enumerated, but more in a moment.
There are certain sacrifices you must do if you want to be a free computer user, and that will be the case for some years to come.
No; and this is the subtle point: It is true that one can become a free computer user by making sacrifices, but by definition the sacrifices are easy or at least acceptable or they would not have been made.
So when a die-hard FS user claims to have made "sacrifices" it's really just another way of saying that they didn't find the sacrifices to be too hard; so there is probably no great virtue in it, in which case condemnation against those who find the sacrifice too hard is rather shallow.
It's a way of saying "I'm noble because the sacrifice was convenient to me. Anyone who finds it harder than I did or learned later than I did is (for now) ignoble."
The magnitude of these compromises is dimminishing very quickly.
Which is in fact an acknowledgement of what I say; accepting that it has not yet fully diminished, and accepting that their is a gradient, which is why your view puzzles me.
You seem to suggest that they don't count BECAUSE those facing the dilemma's are users, not developers of free software.
No. I am a user myself, not a developer, so the most natural point of view for me is the user's.
I think that here you are making a fundamentally wrong comparison: the compromise back then was necessary
I think the word is "expedient", not "necessary".
for the development of the foundation blocks of the GNU system (which is, more or less, what distros install today as "minimal" or "standard" system). When you're missing one of those major blocks (such as libc, kernel, compiler, shell, binutils, build system, core utilites, etc.), you're in trouble.
Once you have those, you can build the rest without relying on non-free software at all.
And do you say this as a non-developer to the other non-developers who at work have to use a B2B site with stupid flash menus? Do you tell them that they can build the rest themselves? Does it turn them off the idea of free software?
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.
If you weigh on the quanitity, that is true. But it's an illusion. More free software users does not lead to our goal being reached faster or earlier.
Maybe that's because people are rude to them and damn them for having found it harder than you did. If someone talks nicely and gives them what knowledge they are ready for, maybe they start to become enlightened and then converted.
Another aim of free software is the liberation; which cannot be done merely by writing software, it requires evangelists;
This is not another aim, it is the only aim.
If people do not recognize non-free software as a social problem, we have failed in our mission.
it means to win the understanding of the ignorant, it requires teaching, and this is quite a different problem,
Here is the main point of the whole disagreement: It appears that you think that if you manage to persuade a user or N users to switch to free software (enitirely free or not, it does not matter), that is a net win for the free software cause.
Nope, I think if I can make them switch, that then I can help them taste freedom. Otherwise I may as well talk about dooze faille to them.
I say that this is nothing. Really. Free software will become more and more common, for various reasons -- one of them being that it is becoming technically better, and this process is fast. We don't have to do anything special about that; no efforts are required.
I'm not interested in the common-ness of free software; that can be solved with cover disks and ftp mirrors. I'm interested in the process of freeing individuals.
Users who switch to free software for non-philosophical reasons (like the company I work for, or my uncle) cannot possibly defend the cause or keep up the community, because they're ready to trade away the freedoms they have (because, as you say, they don't realize them and don't value them).
No; they're ready to trade away the freedoms they don't value, they will keep the freedoms they value. But how will they know that there is a freedom until they taste it? Putting it into their hands and on their computer will let them realise it.
So what's the point in getting more users like these?
I wasn't doing it for you, I was doing it for them.
The Open Source campaign is doing already enough in this regard. It is of course not a bad thing at all -- but it's not our goal as activists, and more importantly, does not help the mission.
You have a very narrow mission.
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.
Refer to my explanation above wrt "must have foundation" and "the rest of the system". That is how the subsequent packages were developed (e.g. GNUstep, GNOME, etc.) -- nobody had really faced this problem. (I admit the presentation of my opinion was not clear, and maybe still isn't.)
Clearly the commonality of abstract forms of the compromises does exist, or you wouldn't have to make such a long excuse. It's also the most highly qualified excuse I've ever seen. Of course people had faced the problem before, just rewind 20 years and everyone was facing it. It was expedient because it helped the current aims.
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.
Yes. While this is obvious in the GCC case, I still can't see even a faint sign that it is in the example of Firefox + Flash.
So you think this is not a commonality because you think that non-free flash with firefox can never be used to promote FS aims? I suggest that you have never observed it because you are rude to people who haven't yet met your outward degree of sacrifice.
it also affects the introduction of others to free software.
Such introduction does not help much (or should I say "at all") if these users do not embrace the values of the free software movement, and are not ready to fight for them.
Look at your use of the word "if"! You've answered the question. Such introduction can help IF the users embrace the values of the free software movement. We heard around 8 hours ago from someone on the list who embraced the values by approaching from a free-as-in-cost perspective.
You seem very certain but are you SO certain that NO-ONE who requires non-free flash on linux can begin to embrace free software values?
Suggesting them to treat such non-free software as acceptable only undermines the goal: they will be introduced to free software, and they'll be using it (mostly), but they won't value what they have and what they may lose.
Do you forget the element of time and increased exposure?
Such users are at constant threat of being enslaved again,
yes but the risk is reduced
perhaps even without noticing as they cannot spot the danger.
but now they have increased exposure they may spot the danger, especially if can mentor them.
Lets not dispute about the language, but from my frame this is an admission that you don't appreciate someone elses requirements.
That's the namely the point: if a mere usage requirement leads to neglecting ethical principles, then these principles are not so strong or beleived in the value system of the person making the decision.
My point is that such use is leading to an introduction to ethical principles.
Rather than weaking the principles, we'd better convince people that they're worth as they are.
and if it's more than they can understand? What if it sounds like (as I said before but you deleted) "Be free and unable to do what you need to or be a captive and be able to do what you need to"?
It is strictly personal, and my opinion is that helping the spread and adoption of free software is a very small part of the job, as "thanks" to the open source guys the values of the free software movement do not spread at the same rate as the software.
good
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 do not refuse mine to visit any site they wish, I just explain them why they can't view certain content, and why I cannot install the software required to view it. I don't think they understand yet.
Perhaps we can agree that users who don't yet understand freedom and liberty are not enemies of the free software movement?
Of course, although without generalizing so much. Some of our outright enemies do not understand software freedom too.
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.
Those seem to be the open source people, mostly. I don't treat them as enemies, I just think that by rapidly "helping" people this way and speeding the migration, they are making our job harder. It was substantially easier a decade ago, when people already had to make conscious choice and a convenience sacrifice to use GNU
I suggest that most of those type of people have been converted
-- and it was easier to persuade them, as they approached the issue with a clear mind, juding very often solely based on the ethical values.
http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html
Nothing new on the horizon; people insisting on software freedom are treated as extravagant creatures since at least 1998, if not before.
but what is the FSF going to do about people who aren't there yet?
It does lots of things in that regard; in fact almost all of its activities are diverted in that direction.
So that's it's current aims. Lets re-evaluate "expedient" in terms of current aims...?
If giving a guy non-free flash on his ubuntu disk lets me teach him about freedom, I'll do it. I can't guarantee he'll like freedom or ubuntu but them it's his choice.
Sam
Sam Liddicott wrote:
I understand your point, and here we disagree: there is no reason for a user or developer or $insert_role_here to make such dillemas today.
I think that it is these absolute statements that disturb me,
What is absolute? In the free world, there is no clear distinction between a developer, a user (or a customer, etc.), and that's the whole point. Everyone can become a developer or assume that role temporarily, and nobody dominates and controls the others.
When Linux became free software in 1992 every user could perform basic tasks with a computer, because the main tools were already available.
So I pretty much reaffirm what I said. Some tasks can only be done with non-free software, still. One should refuse to do them.
There are certain sacrifices you must do if you want to be a free computer user, and that will be the case for some years to come.
No; and this is the subtle point: It is true that one can become a free computer user by making sacrifices, but by definition the sacrifices are easy or at least acceptable or they would not have been made.
So when a die-hard FS user claims to have made "sacrifices" it's really just another way of saying that they didn't find the sacrifices to be too hard; so there is probably no great virtue in it, in which case condemnation against those who find the sacrifice too hard is rather shallow.
Oh, I have heard this "argument" before, unsurprisingly. I was not born a "die-hard FS user", for sure. I used non-free software once, and major activities of my life depended on non-free software. I can assure you the sacrifices I decided I must start making were not easy at all. It was a major change in the way I live or even look at the world. (And still are not easy -- for example, the switch from Debian to gNewSense is a big regression from technical point of view for most Debian users.)
Because I have gone through this (including on a corporate level), and I know how much efforts and will it takes, I can say what I say with clear conscience. Feel free not to beleive all of that, of course.
It's a way of saying "I'm noble because the sacrifice was convenient to me. Anyone who finds it harder than I did or learned later than I did is (for now) ignoble."
Rather, it's a convenient way to justify your actions and align the ethical system you'd wish to pursue with them. It is a way to decrease the discomfort that is triggered by an action that contradicts a value system you pledged to follow.
JFTR, I don't think that I'm any more "noble" than you or other by deciding to follow such principles, I just think that your help is not necessary, because the adoption is going on without any help. And the goal is the adoption of the ethical principles, not the practical result that stems from them.
The magnitude of these compromises is dimminishing very quickly.
Which is in fact an acknowledgement of what I say; accepting that it has not yet fully diminished,
Yes, of course; this will take years, maybe even a few decades.
Some years ago it was not possible to send faxes on GNU/Linux. It was not possible to watch movies, to manipulate images, to stream audio/vidoe, there was no free graphical web browser, etc. Lots of things were missing, and thanks to the community this gap is being filled, much quicker than it was done in the 90's.
But I'll say it again: you want to justify the usage of non-free software now as something acceptable and similar to the early development of GCC. That is totally wrong, and if you are really aiming for a future entirely free world, you are undermining your own efforts with the short-term benefit that you'll "convert" some certain amount of users.
I admit I was doing something very similar in the late 90's/beg 00's, and that's a mistake. A grave mistake.
Once you have those, you can build the rest without relying on non-free software at all.
And do you say this as a non-developer to the other non-developers who at work have to use a B2B site with stupid flash menus?
You don't "have to" visit that site. (Or today, you could even visit that site with Gnash and swfdec, and help their developers nail bugs if it doesn't work well.)
This comes with certain dose of inconvenience, such as explaining a friend why you can't use the link she sent you, or telling your boss that there is no way to do what he orders. Sometimes it requires going to a bank or IRS or some institution by feet, or using the phone or snail mail to obtain the information you want (so there is certain cost too, in some cases).
That's the kind of sacrifice I'm talking about, and it's not that huge compared to the sacrifice made by the people who gave their lives for a good cause.
In fact it is very ridiculous compared to that, but because we have turned into a consumer society, it looks like something extremely odd and bizarre.
Nope, I think if I can make them switch, that then I can help them taste freedom.
Making them switch to free software can't be bad. But you are again missing the point. What is really important is if these users insist on their freedom. It is crucial to explain them why this system was developed, and why it relies on them (the future citizens) never to allow our world to be ruined.
Simply using and enjoying the large pool of free software packages doesn't achieve that, especially if you teach them to accept non-free software as legitimate compromise, when they need it. It wipes out everything.
I'm interested in the process of freeing individuals.
And you're not really freeing them if you suggest that they use Firefox, that's why the Gnuzilla project exists.
But how will they know that there is a freedom until they taste it? Putting it into their hands and on their computer will let them realise it.
Not really, not according to my NSHO. My boss is "tasting" freedom for 5 years now (when we migrated to free software on all machines), and he recently bought an iPhone (and is very happy with it). He equipped his yacht of all sorts of modern navigational equipment, and these devices are computers now (they were not when I was actively sailing). In fact, they are more powerful computers than the machine I'm composing this message right now.
He just waived a hand when I pointed him to John Sullivan's article series at fsf.org. He didn't even read a single line.
My uncle switched to GNU/Linux because someone told him Skype runs "safer" there. He still uses a proprietary database/organizer program and is "enjoying" or "tasting" the freedom. All my colleagues, past and present, don't care at all about these freedoms. Almost all GNU/Linux machines I have installed for friends and relatives were switched to Muck OS X or Ubuntu(+non-free stuff) subsequently.
That's the real picture of our community -- increasing number of users, the majority of them not interested at all in the ideals of the movement, let alone defending them. Free software just started to become ready for mass usage, and because it has certain practical benefits, and is kinda fashionate to use it, people are migrating (there are more reasons than these, naturally, but it's not important at all).
Is this really a success? Is this the main goal that we pursue?
You have a very narrow mission.
In fact the opposite is true. A narrow mission is a mission that strives for "wide adoption" and popularity, and relies on inertia and accidential events to end up with success automagically.
Of course people had faced the problem before, just rewind 20 years and everyone was facing it.
I am talking about _now_. We don't have to do that now, thanks to others who developed a free replacement. By "others" I mean literally thousands of free software developers, and users who helped improve the software by reporting bugs and suggestions for enhancements.
You seem to claim that the very same dillemas stand in front of people nowadays -- that's miles away from the truth. Light years, even, if I remember the problems I was fighting with in 1996, say.
because you think that non-free flash with firefox can never be used to promote FS aims?
Exactly. It can never be used for that, as suggesting anything non-free is self-defeating -- you are already telling people that proprietary software is "OK", thus making the whole message worthless.
(FWIW, I basically agree that "Windows+Firefox+non-free-plugins" is better than "Windows+IE", but that's again the quantitive, arithmetic approach. If people really cared about freedom, they wouldn't use Windows even for a minute. Whether it helps them switch? I seriously doubt that. If there are powerfull, feature-rich applications like Emacs, Firefox, OOo, GTK+, ..., available for the system they feel convenient, why should they switch? They will switch only if they value their freedom, and this feeling and willingness does not come with "tasting" the freedom of Firefox or OOo.)
I suggest that you have never observed it because you are rude to people who haven't yet met your outward degree of sacrifice.
I don't see how voicing an opinion as mine can be rude. I skimmed through our discussion so far, and I can't find anything in which I accused you personally. In fact the opposite is true (although I don't feel accused as I'm used to that kind of accuses) -- your claim that the sacrifices I've made were made because they're easy. They were everything but easy.
Look at your use of the word "if"! You've answered the question. Such introduction can help IF the users embrace the values of the free software movement.
Well, you've answered the question too. They can't possibly embrace these values if you say that some certain non-free packages are OK to use. This directly contradicts with the values you wish to propagate, so any rationally thinking person is going to detect that, consciously or not.
It is almost equal to say this while advocating anti-racism:
"Distinguishing people by the color of their skin is unethical and antisocial. Speak with black people, sit at one table with them, celebrate holidays together -- you'll discover that they are human beings, and that's how you should treat them. They are just like you, and helping people is the basis of the society. But those niggers from that nasty ghetto can be treated differently, and you can enslave them to work on your plantation, at least until the world advances enough so that agriculture machines are produced and available at an affordable price. You know, sometimes it's not possible to earn enough to feed your children, so doing that is reasonable."
You'll probably gain many "supporters" that way for the "antiracist" movement; whether they'll entirely reject racism on the long term is rather questionable.
Remember, non-free software is a social desease -- maybe not so important and harmful as racism -- but that is the desease that the GNU project set out to cure. No such compromises can be made in this battle, as doing so is a guarantee that there won't be a win at the end.
So, to refer to something that you posted in this discussion -- it's "White". It's "white" all over. It is about a complete, firm, and definite liberation of every computer user. It is about rejection of non-free software just like slavery (in the trivial meaning of the word) and racism are being rejected nowadays.
It is about freeing the world from the digital empires.