[yavor at doganov.org: Re: Defining Free Software Business]

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >    It has been repeated often enough here that in many lines of
   >    business it is NOT possible to transfer instantly to use 100%
   >    free software and that it is not even a neccessary evil, but a
   >    noble good, to aid the transition by means of compatability
   >    tools AS WELL AS WRITING NEW SOFTWARE.
   >
   > There is a difference between making a transition, and
   > recommending the use of non-free software.  One is not related to
   > the other.

   Sometimes it takes a piece of non-free software to assist the
   transition as RMS has testified in the past, and you have also
   stated in this list.

You must have misread something.  I have not stated any such thing,
nor do I know of RMS having stated anything remotley similar.  What
has been stated by me, which is directly based on what RMS has said,
is that if you have non-free software you do not use it or support it,
but write a replacement.  Debian is doing nothing in the vicinity of
that.  There is a free Java suit that the GNU project has developed,
yet for some odd reason, Debian feels it wise to include the Sun Java
suit.

   But you have suggested that it should not be for people who solve some
   peoples problems by promoting certain uses of non-free software to aid a
   transition and it is this that I disagree with.

You cannot solve problems by promoting evil.  You solve problems by
working _against_ evil, and replacing the evil with good.

   I know you disagree so we don't need to repeat that; I just don't see
   why you think the GBN should not even LIST companies that are going for
   other fields what RMS has already done in his own field, or that are
   HELPING those who are doing in their field what RMS did in his own field.

You have a conroted view of RMS.  The only reason he used non-free
software was because there was _NO_ alternative, no editor, no
compiler, nothing.  He was _forced_ to use non-free software.

Now we have the core that allows us to develop more free softawre, so
there is absolutley no reason whatsoever to recommend, or support
non-free software.  That some user feels that he has no choice is
simply not true, he can hire a hacker to write the software he needs
or he can write it himself.

Non-free software is unacceptable, supporting it is evil.  We don't
need to support it or recommend it anymore.  It is as simple as that.
What we need to do is develop free alternatives, but distributing
non-free software and recommending it only works _against_ that.