On Jan 5, 2008 12:53 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> 4) FYI I think the wine project is counter-productive as it enables
>    running non-free software on free software operating systems, and as
>    such de-incentivates the creation of replacements.
> 4.1) but it's free software and its authors have their own independence.

It makes good sense to establish principles and stick to them. It
makes sense that different people have different principles and will
criticize one another on the basis of them. But I think it is
important to recognize that what furthers adoption of free software
over non-free software is complicated and does not seem to follow from
any simple rule. For instance, it seems to you that the Wine project
is counter-productive. But the Wine project is inseparable from
winelib. If you're not already familiar with winelib, check it
out--then I'd be curious to know if you still think the Wine project
is counterproductive, considering that there are many free
applications that are Windows-only for technical reasons arising out
of decisions made early in their development.

Separately from this, Wine enables people who retain Windows for a few
applications to switch over entirely to other operating systems. How
do you balance this effect against your suggested effect of
discouraging development of free replacements to software? What would
you need to know to actually know that Wine was ultimately
counterproductive, or ultimately productive? When it comes right down
to it, a lot of the arguments about what do and will have what effect
don't stand up unless supported with statistical evidence. This is the
sort of thing you could publish a paper on, or maybe a book. But there
is no reason for anybody to buy any argument about what specific kinds
of free software encourage adoption of free software that doesn't
provide something approaching hard evidence.

It is one thing to say that there is a way for a project to be run
that is most ethical. It is another to say that this will have the
most ethical effects in the long run. There is no reason to believe
that what has the best effects in the long run is necessarily the
right thing, but then again, if it turns out that the "ethical" thing
usually leads to unethical results in the long run, it is worth
examining one's ethics.

-Eliah

Reply via email to