3rd Fellowship Raffle to attract more Fellows

Alfred M. Szmidt ams at gnu.org
Wed Mar 14 16:29:37 UTC 2007

    ams> The probobaility that someone knoweldgeble enough to write
    ams> this missing pieces will win the raffle is about as probable
    ams> as me getting hit by a meteorite.

   As was explained multiple times in this thread: These devices are
   only given to people who have registered themselves as developers
   who are capable and willing to work on the devices.

The FSFE is still distributing non-free software to people through
public channels.  This gives the wrong picture to everyone involved.

    ams> I might understand this whole thing _if_ the FSFE was
    ams> activley looking for one or two people too actually work on
    ams> this,

   You mean in the sense of putting out a call for qualified


    ams> The FSFE is still distributing them to people!  How is this
    ams> not recommending them?  It doesn't matter how clearly, and
    ams> expressdely you state that it is not `good enough'.

   The critical point here is that FSFE is willing to pass a very
   limited amount of these devices along to Free Software developers
   for the singular purpose of making them run with Free Software.

The FSFE is still distributing non-free software to people through
public channels.  And directly (no matter how many statements,
warnings, and notes you send out) recommending non-free software to
people.  It simply does not matter that you put a big red label saying
`WARNING: Non-free software in here! Use at your own risk!', it is
still wrong to distribute it.

   There is no general distribution of these devices, the devices are
   not being distributed to just anyone, and they are explicitly *not*
   recommended for general use.

Can anyone sign up for the raffle? Yes.  Can anyone claim to be a
developer? Yes.  So despite your claims that this is not `general'
distribution, it is exactly that.  You sent out a press release
recommending these devices.

    ams> No, since the FSFE is not attempting to making these devices
    ams> work with free software.

   That is your interpretation of the situation which is either
   questioning the intent, or the way it is done.

This is the interpretation of several people, including the GNU chief
webmaster.  I guess us GNU folks have no clue about how to inrepret
things when it comes to distributing non-free software...

   If you are questioning the intent, there is very little to be
   gained by continuing the conversation. If six years of hard work
   for Free Software by overall hundreds of people have not convinced
   you that FSFE works for goals that you share, then I certainly
   won't be able to do so in this discussion.

And by distributing non-free software to people you are trying to
convince that you are sharing the goals of the free software movement?
You have seen yourself that several people have lost faith in the FSFE
by these futilie attempts to justify a immoral and unethical action.  

Just admit that what you did was wrong, and retract the raffle, and
then take a hard look about how to do it better instead of trying to
justify that the FSFE has a responsibility to its Fellows in
distributing non-free software.

More information about the Discussion mailing list