Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org> writes: > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > It is a miscommunication, albeit on GNU project side. Not all humans have > > possibility to use non-free software in all aspects of their life :-). > > Why argue the question? It is important to have the enbaling option, i.e. possibility. If a non-swimmer sees a drowning man in a lake, it is not unethical to not jump into the lake to save the drowning man. It is easy to be righteous for a well fed man in a cozy home having all
> > I think GNU project should tell people to use exclusively free software > > *whenever they can*, > > It's possible you've been misinformed about what the GNU Project says > to the public about using software. Have you looked at what we > actually say? You can find it in https://gnu.org/philosophy/. I haven't red everything; some. I must admit when I wrote the sentence you quoted, I was thinking of that text (part 8.) I linked to, not of the rest. It was the one that was the basis for the argumentation here, so I just focused on that one. > To start with, look at fsf.org/tedx, I didn't know you had a ted-talk :-). Yes, I will watch it. > https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html, > and https://gnu.org/philosophy/saying-no-even-once.html. > > > This is a bit paradoxical again. For the first, there is a slight > > problem with saying that people's work is unethical, but not people > > themselves. I understand what you mean, but I am afraid that a wider > > audience is not that understanding. > > I think it is important to be able to condemn an act without > condemning the person who does it. Nuances like that are important. > To simplify them away would result in being too harsh on the people. I think you are correct about that one. I was thinking about it more later, and I think I was going to far there.
