| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Did RMS "start" this discussion?Did RMS "start" this discussion?Posted Dec 20, 2007 1:58 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421)In reply to: Did RMS "start" this discussion? by drlark Parent article: Insufficiently free?
If you are to follow his rationale that use the ports tree makes it "easy" to use non-free software, then you pretty much have to lump anything that could be used, i.e. ftp, lynx, etc. BTW, the ports-tree is, like the rest of OBSD, distributed freely. RMS responded to precisely this argument in more than one place, and you are misrepresenting his rationale. He makes a clear distinction between a port that gives a specific "recipe" of instructions for how to install a specific piece of non-free software—which, in his point of view, is effectively a recommendation of a specific piece of non-free software and hence unethical—and generic tools like "make" and "ftp" which could be used for a variety of purposes, both for free and non-free software, and hence are ethically neutral. You may or may not agree with his basic philosophical premise that using, recommending, encouraging, or giving recipes for running specific non-free software is unethical—reasonable people can have different value judgements on this question. Attacking RMS on the grounds of logical inconsistency, on the other hand, is harder; he has a well-earned reputation for being consistent to a fault. (All too many "logical" criticisms of him seem to rely on exaggerations or misunderstandings of his point of view.) On this specific issue, this post by RMS is pertinent: Any general-purpose system can run non-free software, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether a distribution refers people to the non-free software or not.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||