Searching for common ground between Debian and FSF

Posted Jul 12, 2012 20:29 UTC (Thu) by Jonno (subscriber, #49613)
In reply to: Searching for common ground between Debian and FSF by panzerboy
Parent article: Searching for common ground between Debian and FSF

> It might be that FSF will object at this as well. Isn't providing infrastructure for something endorsing it in a way?

Not necessarily. I would consider it to just be *tolerating* it, combined with a desire to bring some semblance of order to the chaos...

Searching for common ground between Debian and FSF

Posted Jul 12, 2012 23:37 UTC (Thu) by ldarby (guest, #41318) [Link] (4 responses)

It's not just tolerating, it's actively providing resources to the "enemy", which the FSF won't accept.

Searching for common ground between Debian and FSF

Posted Jul 12, 2012 23:47 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (3 responses)

> It's not just tolerating, it's actively providing resources to the "enemy", which the FSF won't accept.

If you define the "enemy" as your users who are trying to get things done, you are correct.

The FSF has forgotten their earlier statements that it's acceptable to use closed code when there is no open equivalent yet. Instead they are trying to say that users should not have the choice of closed code at all.

Searching for common ground between Debian and FSF

Posted Jul 13, 2012 0:09 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (1 responses)

When did FSF say that? A exact reference would be better.

Searching for common ground between Debian and FSF

Posted Jul 19, 2012 15:55 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

I doubt it was the FSF - I think it predates the FSF.

But you'll find RMS quoted as saying that if you look back far enough. Probably the mid 80s.

Cheers,
Wol

Searching for common ground between Debian and FSF

Posted Jul 13, 2012 1:20 UTC (Fri) by ldarby (guest, #41318) [Link]

> If you define the "enemy" as your users who are trying to get things done, you are correct.

By enemy I meant the popularity of the software, possible the software itself, and maybe the authors, but not the users.

> The FSF has forgotten their earlier statements that it's acceptable to use closed code when there is no open equivalent yet.

I can't remember where I read this and I can't find a link, but I thought RMS's said it's never OK to use non-free, apart from when replacing it, i.e. in order to bootstrap the GNU project. And if there's no free alternative then to get started writing one. (I'm not saying that's practical, I'm saying that's what his position is...)

> Instead they are trying to say that users should not have the choice of closed code at all.

Yes, the FSF has a zero-tolerance policy for non-free, and trying to prevent it being used, by preventing users from finding out about it, is consistent with that. (although it's pretty much censorship, and very ineffective at that)