[yavor at doganov.org: Re: Defining Free Software Business]
schaefer at alphanet.ch
Tue Jun 27 09:53:15 UTC 2006
> In our Free World there is no place for non-free software. We will
The first technical moves of the FSF was to implement an libre editor, and
libre compiler on top of a proprietary operating system (UNIX). The goal
was to replace it, piece by piece.
If the people at the FSF had been so strict at that time, the GNU
Project and the FSF would not exist today.
Also, remember that most today's processors are proprietary, and that
they have software in them, which executes x86 or x86_64 instructions
(the CPU microcode).
This software is a very important part of a computer system: no software
can run without it.
Also, the BIOS of every machine is proprietary. There are efforts to
develop a libre BIOS, however I didn't see any partnership from the FSF
with a hardware manufacturer in order to deploy it somehow. That could
be interesting, for many reasons.
Why is the FSF not pushing the design and release of a new microcode
processor, fast and efficient, instead of letting people run libre
software on top of a so proprietary architecture ?
You just have to *define* where the limit is. I am pretty well today
with a proprietary processor containing proprietary software microcode;
and I can stand a proprietary BIOS, at least on my laptop.
I am not at all well with the current Java situation; I am pretty well
with Debian classifiying libre and non-libre software, although I would
prefer they separate it more clearly from the distribution.
What is important to me is that Debian allows me to install a machine
with only libre software, if I choose to.
I pretty much understand why we should raise the limit. I am in the
libre software business for about 5 years and I try not to compromise
with it. But people at the FSF should really learn that it's a daily
fight, and sometimes, we *do not* have any solution for the customer
and have to admit it.
But raising the limit doesn't mean bashing.
PS: I prefer to use libre, free is misleading sometimes
> I am expressing personal opinion only.
same for me.
More information about the Discussion