yes, i realise that. the question in the end is what is the best strategy. making some compromises along the way to enhance the spread of one's ideas, or sticking strictly to one's ideals, even if that means that your message won't be heard by as many people.
It is sensible to make compromises to enhance the spread of our ideas. The issue here is about other compromises that distort the ideas instead. Our message is that non-free software is unjust and illegitimate. But our actions speak too. If we treat non-free software as legitimate, that becomes a part of our message. Then it isn't the right message any more. Consider for instance "open source", started in 1998 as a way of talking about free software while not aiming ethical criticism at non-free software. Some of the people who started open source sought to bring the free software message to more people, by presenting it in a different way. Their manner of presentation was to take the easier course, not confronting the central ethical issue. They made the usual arguments that "to change the world, you have to be big." They thought they could present the same issue to more people using their presentation. Their actions did bring a message to a lot more people, but it wasn't the free software movement's message. It had changed into a message of "it's ok for you to use any non-free software if you want to." What they considered a mere change in presentation of the message had gutted its heart and soul. In a world where proprietary software is widely used, it is easy to drift into treating it as normal and legitimate. In many situations, that is the easiest way out. But it is also disastrous, because it would enfeeble our message to the point were it becomes useless. We have to put limits on this, and I've chosen GNU Project policies to do so. I am not sure if these limits are in the right place. I sometimes worry that they are too permissive, and that our message is already weakened by our support for widely used non-free operating systems. However, we are at least trying to confront this problem. We will not neglect it, because we know what that leads to. There is another reason to be skeptical of your advice: you disagree with the message you are trying to help us present. I am sure you are sincere in trying to think about it from our point of view, but your real views will have an effect. You're not the first person to have offered that advice. I've probably heard it dozens of times. And often it seems to come from people that don't really want what we are aiming for. _______________________________________________ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources