On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Now, to the subject of whether GNOME should or should not link to > non-free > > websites > > The expression "nonfree website" is one we do not use, because it is > not clear what that would mean. Web sites raise various kinds of > ethical issues. > > The issue here is very specific: a web site requires visitors to run > nonfree software in order to use the site to do the job in question > (in this case, to donate). > > If a web site runs nonfree software internally, that doesn't affect > the site's visitors, so we have no reason to concern ourselves with that. Whist I don't disagree with what you are saying. There are only so many hours in the day. I can't reasonably drop in replace "non-free websites" with all that text or I would never get to the points I am trying to make about it. As I suggested earlier on this point, unless someone contradicts your definition (which I don't believe anyone has done, yet), I am acting on the assumption that people reading this thread have already seen what we are talking about and that we have defined what we mean already: For us to collectively be able to answer the question of whether GNOME > should be endorsing links to non-free sites, we first need to be able to > answer a couple of relevant questions. > 1. In what situations can any published link on GNOME's servers be > representative of the GNOME Foundation (i.e. how are we defining GNOME as a > trademark/brand) such that that link could be perceived as being an > endorsement/advertisement. > 2. What is a link to a non-free site (I believe Richard might have gone > some way to covering that already, though there might yet be some debate to > be had, yet) Magdalen
_______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
