On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:49:51PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
| | I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux. The versions of Linux
| | in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs.
|
| Interesting, these linux distributions.
|
| They are GNU/Linux distributions. (See
| http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.)
So, they are distributions using a linux kernel. Your attempt at
having me call it something other than what I would normally call it
fails, even after I have read the gnu-linux "faq" you've referred me
to (before you did so, I might add).
| They seem to be pretty new,
| what did you recommend before these came onto the scene ? None of
| these seemed to exist 8 years ago.
|
| Nothing! For many years there was no system distribution I
| could recommend to the public, and that is what I said.
You did not look very far then. From your comments it would seem that
OpenBSD would have been a perfect match for you, right up until the
moment that they added the first port of non-free software. The ports
tree is relatively new in OpenBSD, some years ago users did not have
the option of installing ports or the binary packages they produce. At
that time there were license issues within OpenBSD, but those have
always been considered equal to "normal" programming bugs : issues
that need fixing (and most (if not all) have been fixed since).
| You are, however, being asked to explain how you combine these views
| with the support for several non-free OS'es within the copyleft
| software packages of emacs and gcc.
|
| Yes, after one person brought this up, many others repeated it (as if
| sheer volume of namecalling meant something). My message about this
| issue will go out in the same batch as this message.
I've read it, and I find your response quite unsatisfactory. Let me
please quote from another e-mail I've sent on this topic :
> Again, in his words :
>
> Including a program by name in the ports system does
> suggest using that program. It grants the program a
> sort of legitimacy, and that is what I am opposed to.
>
> Providing binaries for non-free operating systems suggests using those
> binaries *on those non-free OS'es*, does it not ? It grants those
> non-free OS'es a sort of legitimacy, does it not ? RMS states that
> granting legitimacy to non-free software is what he is opposed to, yet
> it is exactly what he does by providing support for non-free OS'es in
> his copyleft software.
>
> Please, explain to us how this is not true. Your argument of it being
> at the other extreme ethical standpoint does not hold, since Richard
> spoke of granting legitimacy to non-free software, not about a
> direction to move from non-free to free or vice versa.
In that same e-mail I've said "A little pragmatism goes a long way", a
view I take on many occasions. It seems from your reply that you do
the same. Richard, could you please explain :
o Are you opposed to granting non-free software legitimacy ?
o Do you consider that writing support for non-free software
grants that non-free software legitimacy ?
I do believe that the first is true : yes, you are opposed to granting
non-free software legitimacy. I believe that you've said this (in
other words) on several occasions so far.
If you agree that writing support for non-free software grants that
non-free software legitimacy then you are a hypocrite because this is
what "you" do with both GCC and Emacs, yet you say you are opposed to
granting this legitimacy. So if you agree, your actions belie your
stated moral.
Since you support non-free software with GCC and Emacs, I will take
that to mean that you do not consider writing support for non-free
software grants that non-free software legitimacy. So you write
support for non-free software but that doesn't grant it legitimacy.
The OpenBSD ports-people write support for non-free software (in the
OpenBSD portstree) but you now say that *this* support grants the
non-free software legitimacy.
It seems that only when *you* write support for non-free software, you
consider it to not grant that non-free software legitimacy.
Please, Richard, point out the logical fallacy I'm making here. I sure
as hell can't see it. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but it sure
seems like you're going out of your way to tell OpenBSD developers
they are "wrong" in your opinion, because ... well, because of what ?
Because they use the wrong license ? Because their software is free
and not copyleft ? Because you feel treated 'unfriendly' ? Because
they use a harsh tone of voice in their mails ? We can only guess.
Perhaps we need to take a look at what 'legitimacy' means. "OK to use"
seems a fair description in this case. You consider it not "OK to use"
non-free software as installed from the portstree. You seem to
consider "OK to use" non-free operating systems, simply because "they
are already there". Your reasoning seems to be : "Well, the user was
already using non-free software, so it's OK if he continues to do so".
Yet, we just established that you consider it *not* "OK to use"
non-free software.
This is just one attempt at describing what 'legitimacy' means.
However, in all cases I have tried, it seems that we end up with a
situation similar to the above, you don't want the user to use
non-free software, yet it is not a problem if he's already doing that.
No need to try stop him, or try to persuade or otherwise convince him
that he should use free software. That's a big hassle, people don't
just swap operating systems. Just because it's a big deal, you don't
care anymore ? Don't want to hurt the cause by scaring away the user
before he gets sold on the argument ?
My argument is that your support for non-free operating systems in
Emacs and GCC (and possibly other packages) grants those non-free
operating systems legitimacy. You are saying : It is OK to use these
non-free operating systems. Which will get translated by 'the masses'
into : "Use Windows, Richard Stallman gives you software for it, he
actively supports and endorses Windows with Emacs and GCC !" (just as
your endorsement of OpenBSD would mean your endorsement of the use of
some non-free pieces of software in the ports tree).
| One person asked why it was "hard" for me to answer this question.
| It wasn't hard for me to respond, but it would have been impossible
| to respond quickly. I have to sleep, you know. And since I review
| my messages before actually sending them, I don't send mail quickly.
That is perfectly valid. You have given your answer yet it raises more
questions. Others may ask similar questions in the same time frame.
| It usually takes 12 to 24 hours from when a message is sent to when I
| send a response. Plenty of opportunity--for those who seek one--to
| claim that my silence proves I have no comeback.
Again, perfectly valid. I'm not behind my pc 24/7 either and I will
respond to my mail when I have time to do so. It doesn't change the
fact that I'm still very curious about your responses to the above
points, and I will patiently await your reply to my e-mail.
Cheers,
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
http://www.weirdnet.nl/
