On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:29PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > Please note that I'm not saying gcc or emacs should not support > windows, solaris, ultrix or any other non-free operating system. I do > not hold these extreme ethical views. I merely question RMS's ethics. > > Is there anyone here that actually believes it is wrong for free > programs to have code to run on non-free systems? Such a person could > honestly criticize me for thinking that is acceptable. But I have a > hunch that nobody on the list holds those extreme ethical views. In > other words, you and others are attacking me for agreeing with all of > you on this point.
No, at this point it's not whether you agree with me (or "us"), but whether you agree with your own stated beliefs. Merely ackowledging non-free software is to suggest it to the user in your opinion, right? How much more suggestion to actively support non-free software? It's more than acknowlegement, it smacks of endorsement. This, to me, is the issue now. > Everyone has to draw lines between cases that are partly similar, and > that is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a contradiction between one's > stated views and one's actions -- for instance, criticizing someone > else for doing that which you do not think is wrong. See above. > To reconcile these two needs, I concluded that I should generally > accept compromises and part-way measures that are beneficial in the > short term, as long as they don't undermine the long-term goal. > However, we must not advocate part-way measures that imply rejection > of the goal. > > More concretely, this means that I can grant legitimacy to installing > free software, even if they don't go all the way and erase all the > non-free software on their machines. But I cannot grant legitimacy to > installing a non-free program, because that would be treating the > problem as a solution. Thus, I can encourage installing Emacs, GCC or > OpenOffice on Windows, but I should not encourage installing non-free > programs on GNU/Linux or BSD, just as I should not encourage > installing Windows. > > It sounds like you disagree with these conclusions, and also with the > goal that they are based on. I respect your right to your views, but > I strive to act according to my views. I think it's enabling the continued use of non-free software. The single benefit of distributing "free" Windows software that comes to mind is to introduce a user to the idea that free software can be a viable alternative. I can't think of another reason at all. And the $200 Walmart Linux PC has already done more in that regard than years of GCC and Emacs for Windows. So I think the ideological reasons justifying GNU Windows software are shaky at best and outright hypocritical at worst, and the pragmatic reasons just haven't worked. -- Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
