Defining Free Software Business
Bernhard R. Link
brl at pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de
Tue Jun 27 09:21:01 UTC 2006
* Yavor Doganov <yavor at doganov.org> [060626 20:46]:
> Correct. If someone uses non-free software that means that he/she
> doesn't value his/her freedom. But if someone, particularly if this
> someone is one of the major GNU distributions, a free software
> project, offers proprietary software to its users hiding behind the
> "Our priority are our users" slogan, well, that is not only totally
> unacceptable, it is disgusting.
Hiding depends from where you look. I think you are hiding behind your
hate on evil licensed software, so you do not have to see the need of
users. Sadly propietary software exists and many are locked into using
it, but they still have the right to profit from as much free software
> [...] This is absolute hypocrisy,
> while one cannot observe anything similar in the FSF's actions.
I think you are confusing hypocrisy with inconsitency. Debian does not
claim all is good and well, but that there are many compromises and is
not even at one with itself with many of those. It's not claiming
only saints without failing are allowed to get salvation while freedom
only matters for the one thing while for other things freedom is something
> > That both sides don't agree with each other over small areas (Debian's
> > non-free, or the FSF's GFDL'd docs) really doesn't matter a huge amount
> > in the grand scheme of things IMHO.
> If you consider promoting and distributing of non-free software a
> small area, that's ok. But it is fundamental NOT to do that for those
> who support the Free Software Movement.
Please do not confuse support for Free Software with your opinion about
how this should be done. For me its about freedom for the humans using
software. Killing anyone writing, distributing, using or mentioning
propietary software might be a good way to only have Free Software, but
it would not solve the ultimate goal, to free the humans from
restrictions from evily licensed software.
Bernhard R. Link
More information about the Discussion