* Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-12 17:52:29]: > In the end, the only way to prevent users from running non GPL > software > > Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from > running non-GPL-covered software? Not I. I frequently run OpenSSH, > whose license is not the GNU GPL, and is incompatible with the GPL (if > my memory serves). It is free software, so why not use it? > > Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from > running non-free software? Not I. I think that software is > unethical, and I refuse to install it, or suggest it to anyone. But I > have not proposed that systems actually block its installation. > > If no one is in favor, why argue against? >
The people who proscribe to your philosophy do not need the gNewSense distribution. They have enough sense of their own. And then there is your proposed mozilla firefox modification. The people who proscribe to your philosophy do not need this. They make the choice themselves. What you (and some others) are doing is deliberately impeding people from installing software of their choosing. When the user is especially ignorant of computers, they are being especially forced, because they don't have the werewithal to act otherwise. The user should have control of the computer, not the other way around. (Sound familiar?) This is where I bring up your anti-DRM campaign and finish with an accusation of hypocrisy. You're pulling a fast one over on them. That's not a good way to create good will. What would probably get more of the results that you desire is for the distribution to offer software that is non-free and free. When the user tries to install the non-free, the distribution should inform them of the alternative, suggest it, and provide resources for their education, rather than flat-out denying them. When the adobe flash plugin is not avaliable, for instance, they'll just add some repository to their ports system, realize it works better, and be none the wiser about the free software movement. What's so bad if they run the non-free software and then later realize that they should have gone GPL instead? Let alone what's so bad about normal users, who do not code, using non GPL software. They can't participate in the GPL. People using Microsoft Windows does not disturb me in the least. I get the sense that it disturbs you. _That's_ disturbing. People who get upset about other people's actions that only affect the individual historically have been nutjob religious fundamentalists. Are you afraid that people are just going to go after features rather than free software once they've been tempted? so you must keep them ignorant. Plus, how does using GPL software educate people about the GPL philosophy? Nobody can deny that a VAST majority of the "F(/)OSS" community does not understand the difference between free and open source software, let alone what GPL-free-as-in-speech (for lack of a better term) is all about. All they know is free-as-in-beer. Hell, even most of the big linux players don't "get it." -- Travers Buda
