Re: GNOME now
I agree completely. However, that doesn't mean we should make it purposefully *hard* to get those things. Should we warn people? Absolutely. They should know what they are doing and be informed. But that doesn't mean we need to make it hard, and certainly not on purpose. On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote: Tools that use non-free technologies like Skype or Vonage are not just popular, but a requirement for many people who pay for such services. How many average people would purchase a device that did not support such tools? Is this a real issue? On a free operating system, developers can implement whatever they wish. And users can install it if they wish. Most commercial products that work with video require non-free codecs. While users may do what they wish, installing free software that implements non-free codecs may be considered a crime in some places. This seems to be a disconnect of subject. Before, you were talking about support for Skype. The only company that might plausibly implement a program for Skype on GNU/Linux is Skype. So my response is about that. If Skype wants to implement its snooping-enabled nofree software on GNU/Linux, it can do so, and users can install it if they wish. Like any nonfree software, this would be unethical, but I see no reason why it would be a crime. My point is that we must not do _anything_ that could be construed as recommending that nonfree software, and that includes integrating it. Our duty, rather than integrating nonfree software, is to differentiate it -- not do anything that would grant it ethical legitimacy. The same applies to DRM software, which I supposed would be implemented by the same companies that use the DRM, if at all. This too would be proprietary software, and malicious too, so we must not do anything that would grant it ethical legitimacy. Of course, writing free software to break DRM is a good thing to do. Since some states which treat their citizens as enemies persecute such software, GNOME would not be directly involved with it. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. - Goethe Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr.Seuss Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. - Albert Einstein ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME now
I agree completely. However, that doesn't mean we should make it purposefully *hard* to get those things. Should we warn people? Absolutely. They should know what they are doing and be informed. But that doesn't mean we need to make it hard, and certainly not on purpose. The issue is not about making them hard to install. The issue is about not making them particularly easy to install. Any freedom-respecting system provides a general method to install whatever program you wish. We try to make that general method as convenient as possible. No package can be harder to install than that; therefore, to make installation of a certain package hard is not even a real option. The point is, we must do nothing special to facilitate or encourage installing or using a proprietary program. It must not get any special integration. We must not give favoratism to an injustice. GNOME is part of an effort to help users reject nonfree software. Our long-range goal is to put an end to it. We are unlikely to achieve that goal in the coming year, and maybe not in the coming decade. However, if we want to keep advancing towards that goal, we must present and support the goal. To do this honestly, we must avoid acting in ways that contradict the goal. See http://gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html for more explanation. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Looking for community managers or enthusiasts!
Hi, I hope it's slightly better handled than Emily last 2 posts, which managed to say that the removal of fallback was badly communicated (!) without details of what was done wrong, I think it would have made a hell of a lot more sense to announce that there were significant improvements made to llvm pipe, and then explain that we were planning to drop fallback mode. That way we would have given credit to ourselves as a community for thinking about how users would be effected by the change, and then we could have gone on to explain why the change was necessary. That's my two cents. Meg Ford and used a blog post by a troll to make false assertions about GTK+ 3.x's API stability. You might want to vouch for your community managers before you let them loose... ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Looking for community managers or enthusiasts!
Em Sun, 2012-11-18 às 23:39 -0600, meg ford escreveu: Hi, I hope it's slightly better handled than Emily last 2 posts, which managed to say that the removal of fallback was badly communicated (!) without details of what was done wrong, I think it would have made a hell of a lot more sense to announce that there were significant improvements made to llvm pipe, and then explain that we were planning to drop fallback mode. That way we would have given credit to ourselves as a community for thinking about how users would be effected by the change, and then we could have gone on to explain why the change was necessary. As is available on the page referenced in every communication about the removal of fallback? https://live.gnome.org/ThreePointSeven/Features/DropOrFixFallbackMode If people skip reading it intentionally, they'll only see the headline and make their (uninformed) comments. This is pretty much what happened. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
