Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org> writes: > > Clarification: Links to Liberapay do work without running non-free > > software (you can try opening the link yourself). It is only the payment > > process that does not work. > > I am using metonymy, saying "the link works" to mean "the link's > functionality works." It makes the wording shorter, and everyone > can understand it -- including you, if you try. > > What purpose is served by refusing to understand?
I did not refuse to understand. FYI, English is not my mother tongue and I sometimes miss fine details of the word meanings. I wrote the above reply because I was not 100% sure if you know the Liberapay web page itself does not run non-Free JS. Judging from this reply of yours, you do understand it, which means that my clarification did not serve much purpose for you, but should not heart the understanding. It could be useful though if I were right in my doubt. Note that my clarification did not imply that I propose to leave the current state of affairs with Liberapay not providing any non-free way to donate. In my other message I suggested to add some kind of postal address to allow users to donate by sending a check (a Free alternative). That way, users could go to Liberapay page and see the Free way to donate + non-free ways (which we should indicate as not recommended). Not every person is even aware how to use checks these days (I only sent a check once in my life and it was not straightforward). FYI, saying that GNU projects cannot ask for donations is quite upsetting and also discouraging. I'd prefer to find an ethically acceptable alternative. Best, Ihor
