> Since both emacs and gcc contain code inside them which permit them to > compile and run on commercial operating systems which are non-free, > you are a slimy hypocrite. > > I see you are being your usual friendly self ;-}.
Yes, and you are being the usual slimy hypocritical asshole. > There is a big practical difference between making a free system > suggest a non-free package, and making a free package run on a > non-free system. We treat the two issues differently because they are > different. You treat them different because it is convenient for your agenda of hatred against groups of people who, with a lot less donation money, actually suceed at making full operating systems. You treat these issues different because you are a hypocrite. > People already know about non-free systems such as Windows, so it is > unlikely that the mention of them in a free package will tell them > about a system and they will then switch to it. Also, switching > operating systems is a big deal. People are unlikely to switch to a > non-free operating system merely because a free program runs on it. Oh, so this is like thought crime? > Thus, the risk of leading people to use a non-free system by making a > free program run on it is small. However, it is our practice when > doing this to remind people that the non-free system is unethical and > bad for your freedom. If the pages about the Emacs binaries for Windows > don't say this, I'll make sure to add it. It is unethical for you to come attacking our efforts. I am going to ask some of the ports people to make the ports system point at a few more proprietary and non-free pieces of software. In honour of your hypocrisy. > By contrast, many non-free applications are not well known, and > installing one is much easier--it does not require changing everything > else you do. Thus, even telling people about a non-free application > could very well lead them to install it. How convenient for your hypocrisy. > I've published both of these positions before, but in this discussion > I only mentioned the one that is relevant to my views about OpenBSD. > Is that hypocrisy? Is that lying? No, just sticking to the point. > But now that people have raised the other issue, here is my position > on it. It is lying, and it is hypocrisy. You are a slime who changes his position as he needs. You may have had value ten years ago, but people will see that you don't anymore.
