libreplanet-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Question of Aiding and Abetting Proprietary (or non-free) Software i


From: Yasuaki Kudo
Subject: Re: Question of Aiding and Abetting Proprietary (or non-free) Software in GNU projects
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 21:51:52 +0900

So far, here is my own explanation of the apparent contradiction, based on the 
comments from people who kindly participated in our discussion:

- GNU Emacs runs on Windows, a proprietary system.  That's great because it can 
be used as an opportunity to invite people to the world of Free Software.

- Guix runs on Linux, the unabridged with all the proprietary bits and pieces 
for the video card, wifi and all.  The same comment as above... does not apply? 
 Because if it runs on unmodified Linux and people choose to do so, it hurts 
the project of promoting Free Software!

So the contradiction can be explained by the former based on Optimism and the 
latter, Pessimism?

-Yasu







> On May 17, 2022, at 21:05, lkcl <luke.leighton@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ´╗┐On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:38 AM Yasuaki Kudo <yasu@yasuaki.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I just wanted to follow up that I meant to ask:
>> 
>> - Endorsing Free Software to be available on non-free systems,
>> so as long as it is understood that it is an invitation to the fully Free
>> System, not just partial -
>> is this stance well shared among the members and participants of FSF/GNU 
>> projects?
>>  Or is it the case that Richard Stallman is rather uniquely more generous 
>> than others?
> 
> i cannot speak for others - including Dr Stallman - only observe how
> others behave.  and i am having difficulty parsing what you wrote.
> 
> bottom line is that:
> 
>   causing harm to Free Software should be the driving principle of
> actions to avoid
> 
> from there it should be pretty obvious that *each individual person
> and their actions*
> can be guaged as to whether it is good - or bad - for Free Software.
> 
> you do not need me, or anyone else, to tell you that.
> 
> a "stance" is also completely irrelevant to that, and i do not believe it to
> be helpful or useful to consider "stances".
> 
> there is the GNU Maintainers documentation, there is the FSF documentation
> you and everyone else is entirely at liberty to choose *for yourself* whether 
> to
> use it as a guide to your actions - or not.
> 
> l.



reply via email to

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