the end; Re: The crux;; Re: [yavor at doganov.org: Re: Defining Free Software Business]

[Sam Liddicott]

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Obviously, you are a troll.  Please refrain from wasting my time any
> more.  Comments like the FSF is a `has-been' simply are insulting both
> to the FSF and the FSF-e, including other "branches" of the FSF.
>
>   
It only looks like a has-been when you talk about it. I have been
necessarily reminded by a few that you do not speak for the FSF.
> Debian does not care about freedom since it accepts non-free software
> as a solution.  The FSF, GNU project, do not accept non-free software
> as a solution and have for the past 20 years worked towards replacing
> all non-free softawre with free alternatives.  Debian simply continues
> to distribute non-free software.
>   
Very well; here is my parting shot, it provides nothing new but
summarizes our differences.

RMS used non-free software unecessarily when writing gcc; he could have
used his emacs lisp engine to rewrite the sun assembler and other tools
rather than depend on those; he could have hand crafted a forth core in
assembler and then very quickly bootstrapped a system based on forth,
but he didn't; what you call necessary evils were also conveniences of
principle in a difficult starting position. He *could* have started from
scratch but he might not have finihset yet.  Of course this example is
ridiculous and I don't condemn Stallman for it; he had a technical
problem and his solution was technical; tools.

I'm talking about a business problem and the solution is not technical
but whatever gives confidence. You don't accept the value of others
following Stallmans pattern, taking pragmatic view to make the change
quickly rather than purely. I no longer argue that you should now that I
see you understand but reject this claim; however if the FSF only
considers technical solutions to what are not technical problems it will
be ineffective in the area that we have been discussing.

I know that we understand each other now, we just disagree. Most of my
posts have been because I couldn't believe that your stance was actually
what it appeared to be, I was sure that you had misunderstood something.

I have exhaustively (sorry to all on the list) proved that this is not
the case, and that there really is no common ground between us. While we
use some of the same words, we cannot agree to use them over the same
activities (Debians behaviour being the main example).

As there is no common ground we cannot easily come to agreement or
compromise, the discussion is exhausted.

I thankyou for participating with me to this end so that I could
understand your position, I do not find it attractive but I admire you
for not abandoning what are obviously valuable principles.

We may talk again on other matters where we have some agreement.

regards and best wishes

Sam