[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Privileges and practicalities [was: Re: [ELPA] New package: repology

From: Arthur Miller
Subject: Re: Privileges and practicalities [was: Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el]
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 15:29:53 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Richard Stallman <rms@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.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]