"Substituting another program or some other service isn't the same as
running that particular program. But one can watch a video in a variety
of formats and see the same video, one can use different hosting
services for the video data and see the same video. In cases where an
oppressive system is unavoidable (like Stallman faced when first writing
Free Software for the GNU Project), I think using the oppressive system
to obtain liberation is fine to do. "
That was _not at all_ what I was referring to. There are plenty of free
software projects out there which don't replace any kind of proprietary
software and still are available for proprietary operating systems such as
windows. It's new software, providing new functionality, and it's for people
who compromise there freedom in order to steer them away from doing so -
which is perfectly fine.
You dodged my facebook analogy btw; it made my point perfectly clear;
"With regard to Free Software running on nonfree OSes: I think there's a
need for some good research as to whether Free Software on nonfree OSes
eases a transition to running Free Software on a Free Software OS"
No, there is no need for this kind of research; here in this forum, the
majority of 100% free-software users is gathered together and there are
plenty of threads about how they switched to free software. Everybody made
the transition gradually and started using free software on a partially free
system.
"There's
no evidence to show that videos hosted outside YouTube will be seen by
nobody."
No, there is no evidence, but it's plain obvious. I don't know a single
person which is not already educated about the issues of non-free software
who watches videos on platforms other than youtube or daily motion.
"I think the other points you've raised are points I've already
addressed."
You didn't, but I guess we both agree that the discussion is neither fruitful
nor pleasant for us, so maybe we conclude that we disagree.
