On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio <fabi...@fidencio.org> wrote: >> Can you be more explicit about what you mean with "tools used to do >> your/the bank transactions run nonfree software" > > AFAIU, when you do a bank transfer, the job responsible for your > transaction will be executed in the next scheduled period. > There are people monitoring and scheduling it (most likely not using > free software for this), there is a system on where it is being > running (same here ...).
According to the GNU/FSF advocacy, in the case of a service it is ok not to have access to the source code since you're not the one running the software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.fr.html > Apart from that, when you open your bank account you deal with people > using an OS, using the bank applications, most likely non-free > software. When you do a deposit in cash, for someone working in the > bank, mos likely this person is not running a free software. And so > on, and so on ... The argument could be made that it is a shame that the person whose dealing with the software on the other side of the counter doesn't have access to the source code, but in this case nobody forces *you* to use non-free software so it is ok on your side of the counter (which seems to be the part you're missing). > If are you really concerned about people using non free software, you > should take everything in consideration, no? Asking for a thin layer > of free software stuff running seems a bit useless for me. In this particular case, Richard asks to be allowed to participate without being forced to use non-free software on his machine. This is something clearly different from asking for the source of everything being available to everyone. You can learn more about this at the above link and at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PrivateSoftware > And I'm really wondering how much these random comments about "not > good, not free software" coming from and with no real suggestions can > help instead of just generate noise and silly discussions like this > one. You're mislead about the intentions of people caring about software freedom. Your stance is that they should not be so focused on their cause, but maybe you should be a bit more open as well and consider their points and reasoning rather than just outright claiming it is noise. Quite frankly, people that act like that are as tiresome as they claim RMS is. > Hmm. Didn't get good examples from "moot" in the Urban Dictionary > (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moot). > Maybe it should be used a bit more carefully. :-) Or maybe you should be more careful with the sources you use as references. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot adjective, third definition: (North America) Having no practical impact or relevance. "That point may make for a good discussion, but it is moot" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moot 1b has a similar definition. I guess any respectable dictionary will have one. Cheers, -- Alexandre Franke _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
