firefox, iceweasel, burningdog, icecat, ...

Sam Liddicott sam at liddicott.com
Mon Nov 3 17:01:23 UTC 2008


* Yavor Doganov wrote, On 02/11/08 21:09:
> Sam Liddicott wrote:
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> How?  (Maybe I'm missing something.)  It would be probably possible,
> but not feasible at that time.
>
>   
As you say, it was probably possible, and feasable is a value-judgement.
Of course free software aims were better served by not starting from
scratch.
>> Stallman is allowed to have so-judged because it turned out to speed
>> up the development of free software.
>>     
>
> No, because it was the only way to go forward, 
? You just admitted that it was probably possible.
> and he has thought a
> lot about it.  It was not an easy decision.  
if it was impossible it would have been an easy decision.
> Fortunately, nobody has
> to face such dillema today.
>   
This is the point we are discussing.
I argue that for many, there are dilemmas of the same abstract form today.

You seem to suggest that they don't count BECAUSE those facing the
dilemma's are users, not developers of free software.

This is true but wider acceptance of free software is a current problem.
>> But others aren't allowed to so-judge if it speeds up their adoption
>> of free software.
>>     
>
> Please explain how excactly using the proprietary Flash plugin (or a
> browser such as Firefox suggesting to install it) helps the free
> software cause.  
> Does it help to develop a free replacement?  No.
> Does it help to establish alternative solutions (such as SVG, etc.)?
> No.
>   
I think you have helped identify the cause of our misunderstanding.
I do not suggest that using proprietary flash plugin helps develop free
software.
I do not suggest that USING it helps the free software cause either/

I do suggest that if gnu/linux and iceweasel is used with non-free flash
that there are more free software users than if ms windows and explorer
are used with non-free flash.

I do suggest that such users are (as much as they are willing at the
instant) escaping a situation where they might have been further locked
in had they kept using their old software.

I do suggest that those willing to help users who currently feel that
they need at least this compromise are not enemies of free software, but
in fact supports who help the captive appreciate liberty as quickly as
they are able to do so, and protecting them from further lock-in.

> And how is this in any way analogical to the other case: development
> of a free compiler using a non-free one, at least until the free
> compiler can build itself?
>   
Because, as you say, the first aim of free software - free tools - has
been reached.

Another aim of free software is the liberation; which cannot be done
merely by writing software, it requires evangelists; it means to win the
understanding of the ignorant, it requires teaching, and this is quite a
different problem, on with which the FSF is still becoming acquainted;
it's not something which comes naturally to techies who themselves can
learn better than be taught, and are not so good at teaching.

>> Picking analogies which support your position is useful to help explain 
>> but doesn't convince;
>>     
>
> You started the analogy, by saying it's a "reincartnation" of the "old
> question".  I claim that there is no "old question", and no
> "reincarnation" at all.  These two cases have nothing in common.
> Absolutely nothing.
>   
The first commonality is the value-judgement, or rationalization of the
compromise which occurs in both cases; strangely you both denied and
admitted that such a compromise occured in the early days of developing
the tools.

The second commonality is that the compromise in both cases is over
whether or not making the compromise will advance the aims of the free
software movement. You seem to want to restrict the consideration to
whether or not it advances the development of free software, but that is
not the scope I am discussing; it also affects the introduction of
others to free software.

I hope that you can recognize these two commonalities.

The difference is that the second compromise may be made by those who
are not developing free software, but these have only lately become
aware of the free software movement.

This group is recognizable more relevant to free software, as we see in
the changing of the meaning of the word "user" in the GPL3 as compared
to the GPL2.
In the GPL2 user means someone who possesses and invokes the program as
evidenced by the change in the GPL3 which considers the user to be a
non-techie making use of a web service in which the program the user
does NOT posses is invoked on someone elses system.
>   
>> Absolutely, but thats just another way of saying that because you don't 
>> appreciate someone else's requirements 
>>     
>
> No, I perfectly understand the requirements of those who need a flash
> player, and that they are a vast majority compared to those who need a
> compiler.  In fact, 99% of the sites I have to visit at work require a
> flash player.  But it doesn't mean that one has to surrender; it's all
> about how much one values her freedom.  One can refuse to visit such
> sites, even as an employee.
>
>   
Lets not dispute about the language, but from my frame this is an
admission that you don't appreciate someone elses requirements. I don't
mind if you don't want to use those words, but I think we are in
agreement at least. It's not just about how much one values their
freedom, it's about how quickly one is capable of recognizing freedom.

My young children are an example. Right now captivity is more attractive
to them. I do not want to teach them to hate freedom. So I make a
compromise which I feel will promote free software in their life. I
could refuse to let them visit such sites, FSF policy cannot SIGSTP my
children until gnash is ready.
>>> TTBOMK, this did not happen since the 80's when all the important
>>> parts of the toolchain already had free replacements.  
>>>   
>>>       
>> You say this without being all of the people that you say this
>> against.
>>     
>
> Sure.  I'd wish I was at least one of these people, but I'm certainly
> not.  I base this on RMS and other people from the early era, and some
> digging in the changelogs of GNU packages.  Even if RMS makes such a
> claim, which he does frequently in his speeches, he can't speak on
> behalf of all GNU developers and contributors.
>
>   
>> SOME are out of prison, the ones who are still there don't recognize
>> it as a prison.
>>     
>
> I agree, this is more correct.
>
>   
cool. The issue I am trying to discuss is how these can effectively be
brought to appreciate free software; in a way that doesn't involve
waiting until everything they currently use has a free alternative. This
may involve me "tainting" myself as some would see it.
>> 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.
>>     
>
> Maybe, and nobody prevents you to use non-free plugins with an
> entirely free browser such as IceCat.  The purpose of IceCat is not to
> drive users in using such plugins.  That is why the GNU project cannot
> recommend Firefox (also it's source contains some non-free bits, which
> are cleaned in the IceCat package, and in Debian's Iceweasel).
>
>   

Perhaps we can agree that users who don't yet understand freedom and
liberty are not enemies of the free software movement?

Perhaps we can agree that those who help such people make compromises
that speed their migration to free software are also not enemies of the
free software movement.

I think that this is all that was intended to be discussed here.

Otherwise, see linus's blog:
http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html

Things MAY be black and white, but what is the FSF going to do about
people who aren't there yet? We can't SAY the truth because they don't
understand it, when we SAY the truth it sounds like: "You can be free
and not able to do anything or stay the captive thrall of your vendor
and be able to do what you want to be able to do" which clearly is NOT
what we are trying to say.

Sam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20081103/3643d52d/attachment.html>


More information about the Discussion mailing list