[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

From: Henry Jensen
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 23:01:27 +0200

Hello Quiliro,

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:19:50 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez <address@hidden> wrote:

> It is OK to use the terms in a positive way but not to be distracted 
> from the issue of freedom. A position more according to FSF and in the 
> positive sense as you propose would be: "Use ONLY free software to be in 
> control of your computer".

Using only free software is the ideal situation, the goal that have to
be reached. But you can't reach people if you claim you possess the
absolute truth and all others do not. So one must lead people towards
free software carefully, one step at a time.

If someone told you he wanted to replace, let's say, MS Office with
Libre Office on his proprietary system, would you assist him in
installing it? Or would you decline and say "first you must run a
completely free system like Trisquel, and then I help you"?

The FSF supports installing software on proprietary system as a first
step, see

At the FSF even endorses
FreeBSD, which is known to have proprietary software in their ports.
(personally I think, FreeBSD shouldn't be listed there. If they must
list a BSD system it should be OpenBSD, which has, in contrast to
FreeBSD, an explicit free software agenda).

What I want to say with that is, that the FSF is more diverse then you
perhaps know. Their argumentation is quite diverse as well. Many
aspects speak for free software, ethical, technological, economical,
security reasons and so on. Why should one concentrate only on one
line of argument? If I can't someone convince with the "software
freedom" argument, why shouldn't I try the "security" argument (and
frankly, I have been more successful with the security argument in the
past). The FSF uses such "technical" arguments as well.
> >> Freedom takes sacrifice.
> > George W. Bush, 2005, about the war in Iraq
> You cannot compare searching for freedom with attacking another country 
> and killing people. I do not propose hurting anybody or killing people 
> for the sake of freedom. That is contradictory. Please do not use that 
> type of camparison. It makes me feel you think that I am equal to that 
> terrible person. It is for me as if I would compare you to Hitler.

My apologies, I don't wanted to compare you with Bush. I wanted to show
where a view that claims to be the absolute truth can lead. You compared
proprietary software with hunger and death. I think proprietary
software is wrong, but I wouldn't compare it with scourges of humanity.
Like a Christian who may think that Paganism is wrong, or a Socialist
that Capitalism is wrong. They try to change it, but they
certainly don't have an agenda to eradicate it (disregarding small
extreme factions).

The problem is, if you say, that a certain philosophy or idea is so
evil as hunger and death you make the first step in spreading hatred.
Not only towards that philosophy or idea but to the people who stand
for it as well. The next person who hear you say, that a philosophy or
an idea is so evil, may come to the conclusion that the people who
are standing for this idea are evil as well and should be punished.
Before you know it there will be hatred against other people, with all
its consequences. Spreading hatred is always wrong, no matter for which



reply via email to

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