firefox, iceweasel, burningdog, icecat, ...

Sat Nov 1 11:09:44 UTC 2008

Yavor Doganov wrote:
> sam.liddicott wrote:
>   
>> To me whether or not iceweasel should support non-free flash is
>> another incarnation of the older question: Should Stallman have used
>> a non-free compiler to develop gcc? The answer NOW is "yes" because
>> it clearly DID lead to more freedom,
>>     
>
> You are comparing apples and oranges.  RMS and other GNU developers
> used non-free software in the beginning because there was no way to
> solve the circular chicken-and-egg problem.  Once GCC managed to
> compile itself, GCC was used.  The same can be said to a limited
> extent for other essential packages, too.
>   
This is my point; but each person in the world has their own idea of 
what is "essential".

And what you say isn't strictly true either; he could have boot-strapped 
from scratch, but judged it wiser not to, which is also my point.

Stallman is allowed to have so-judged because it turned out to speed up 
the development of free software.

But others aren't allowed to so-judge if it speeds up their adoption of 
free software. It seems to some to be better to let people get more 
enslaved by the emerging set of proprietary traps than offer the hand of 
friendship to those who can't quit cold-turkey.

Perhaps by the time gnash is good enough for some, they will be enslaved 
by silverlight? But if they aren't demeaned for using non-free-flash 
they can move to gnash later without a worry.
> You can think of this like using the prison's tools to build a ladder
> in order to escape from it.  The whole development history of GNU is
> just that -- replacing one non-free star with a free one.
Picking analogies which support your position is useful to help explain 
but doesn't convince; it just makes your analogy repeat your position at 
best or look incomplete at worst.
>   Sometimes,
> to build the next piece you really need other non-free tools, so the
> only way to continue the effort is to resort to using them, at least
> temporarily.  
Absolutely, but thats just another way of saying that because you don't 
appreciate someone else's requirements that they don't warrant such a 
last resort.
Now you may really think that, which is fine, but I'm saying that THEY 
think otherwise.
> TTBOMK, this did not happen since the 80's when all the
> important parts of the toolchain already had free replacements.  There
> is no reason or justification whatsoever to use non-free software now,
>   
You say this without being all of the people that you say this against. 
Of course, how could you be them - but then what makes you so sure that 
you are right that there is no reason or justification whatsoever. It's 
just another way of saying that people who think they have these needs 
are enemy compromisers - which is ok by THEM because they are not trying 
to adopt the FSF position, it's we who want them to adopt it. To them 
the FSF most relevant statement must not sound like: choose between evil 
compromise and impossible inconvenience.

> especially based on this historical "argument".  We're out of prison
> for more than 15 years now, and we have the free tools to build
> whatever we need, rescuing those folks who still wish to spend their
> life (partially or not) in the cyber-jail.
>   
No. SOME are out of prison, the ones who are still there don't recognize 
it as a prison.
> Using the proprietary Flash plugin cannot possibly lead to such an
> escape, 
of course it can't
> on the opposite -- you are only incresing the adoption and
> dependency on this format, perhaps even pressuring your friends.  
This is misleading. If someone is moving to free software but keeps 
non-free flash for a little longer, they are decreasing their dependance 
on non-free software and formats even if they are prolonging their 
dependance on ONE piece of non-free software. Don't you see that it 
becomes a smaller problem. If they entirely stay with proprietary 
systems they may get ensared by even more.
> It
> is also self-explanatory that using a non-free flash player cannot
> help a free player to automagically appear from the mist, or to become
> technically better if it already exists.
>   
I think we don't share the same core position; I want to free people who 
feel that they cannot help a free player automagically appear from the mist.

All captive creatures need to become acustomed to freedom before being 
fully liberated.

But then although I now specify ATI video cards in machines we buy, I'm 
actually using proprietary nvidia drivers. Not using them doesn't 
increase freedom or potential freedom, but supporting ATI does. And 
whatever you wish, avoiding non-free drivers in our ubuntu machines at 
work would also set back adoption of free software. But yet I know many 
will hate me because we're not /already/ using gnusense.

Sam
> Reinhard Mueller wrote:
>   
>> Am Freitag, den 31.10.2008, 10:57 +0100 schrieb Andreas K. Foerster:
>>     
>>> We are - at least I am - talking about the freedom of choice for
>>> the users!
>>>       
>
> The question here is to teach users to treat only freedom as a valid
> choice.  Becoming a digital slave should not be an option.
>
> You can surely install all kinds of non-free plugins/extensions with
> IceCat (as you can install many non-free packages on a GNU system) --
> but what's the point in using it then?
>
>   
>> Somebody who has to install and use the proprietary flash player to
>> view content (because, for example, gnash isn't able yet to display
>> it) does *not* have the freedom of choice.
>>     
>
> Sure he has.  He has the choice *not* to install and use that
> proprietary flash player.  I am still alive after making this choice,
> so it works.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at fsfeurope.org
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20081101/1cf37603/attachment.html>