I would _really_ appreciate if you guys held a discussion about things that quite frankly don't have anything to do with my original question in a different thread. Thank you.
2015-01-03 3:21 GMT+00:00 Michael Catanzaro <mcatanz...@gnome.org>: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Magdalen Berns <m.be...@thismagpie.com> > wrote: > > Hmm I am not so sure: The chip in your own card will be programmed with > non-free software technically the transaction can't work unless the ATM is > reading that. For the ATM to read your chip you are required you to > physically connect your card's chip to the ATM's reader thus making an > electronic circuit between your nonfree chip software and their non-free > ATM software > > > If the nature of a philosophical question is found to depend on the > formation or absence of an electronic circuit, is it still a philosophical > question? > > (Seriously -- the answer is relevant.) > > This does not seem like proportionate response taking into account that > the Builder campaign has time considerations and the developer needs to, > like eat and stuff to keep on living (lest we forget that). How about we > all agree to let Builder off the hook and have a policy discussion about > linking to sites that use non-free software, for in future? > > > There is a wide gulf between the installation of nonfree software on a > computer and the interpretation and compilation of nonfree Javascript by a > web browser. On a technical level, I reject that that constitutes > "installation" of software, but that's just semantics, so let's move on. On > a philosophical level, the web site is a service, and we already agree that > it's not our problem if the service provider runs nonfree software: but why > is the question of whether it's the user's computer or the service > provider's computer that executes nonfree code very interesting? This is a > technical, implementation detail that's largely immaterial to the user > experience. (Traditional free software respects the user and provides a > significantly different user experience than proprietary software.) On a > practical level, a campaign against obfuscated JS is completely doomed and > can only hurt our efforts to attract users to free software. (How many > people do you think would be using <your distro here> if it shipped IceCat > instead of Firefox?) I suspect that the community of free software hackers > eager to take on the entire Internet is dramatically smaller than those > trying to maintain the free desktop. > > Richard's analysis in this thread and the essays on his web site are good, > insightful reading, and I appreciate his guidance and continued > participation in foundation-list threads, but his campaign against browser > JS seems much more radical to me than the rest of our community's > already-radical beliefs*. So let's find out what others think before we > jump the gun and assume we have a problem here: does anyone else here use > IceCat or LibreJS and believe that donating to the Builder campaign via > Indiegogo is unethical due to its use of obfuscated Javascipt? In the > absence of further complaints, let's get that banner posted, please. > > Michael > > P.S. I'm CCing Christian since I'm frankly unsure if he's aware of this > discussion. > > * To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email.... > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > > -- Cheers, Alberto Ruiz
_______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
