Andreas Röhler <address@hidden> writes:
Am 03.10.2015 um 21:26 schrieb John Wiegley:
David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
The whole point of GNU is the non-acceptance of software denying the
users the fundamental software freedoms. This constitutes a moral
judgment and as such is indistinguishable from "demonizing
opponents" or at the very least damning their actions.
Then I respectfully withdraw myself as a candidate for
maintainer. Damning by implication is one thing; setting out to
defame other organizations in order to make one's own appear the
standard of virtue is something else entirely,
And not at all what I have been saying.
and I do not wish to be associated with such methods.
Thanks to all for their supporting words and encouragement, and to
the FSF for having this frank and open discussion with me on the
issues that matter.
Don't think a moral is 'indistinguishable from demonizing opponents",
as David writes. That's a misguided pseudo-religous approach. Also
AFAIK it's not the declared FSF policy.
<URL:https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html>
Since 1983, the Free Software Movement has campaigned for computer
users' freedom—for users to control the software they use, rather
than vice versa. When a program respects users' freedom and
community, we call it “free software.”
We also sometimes call it “libre software” to emphasize that we're
talking about liberty, not price. Some proprietary (nonfree)
programs, such as Photoshop, are very expensive; others, such as
Flash Player, are available gratis—but that's a minor detail. Either
way, they give the program's developer power over the users, power
that no one should have.
Those two nonfree programs have something else in common: they are
both malware. That is, both have functionalities designed to
mistreat the user. Proprietary software nowadays is often malware
because the developers' power corrupts them.
With free software, the users control the program, both individually
and collectively. So they control what their computers do (assuming
those computers are loyal and do what the users' programs tell them
to do).
With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some
other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the program. So the
proprietary program gives its developer power over its users. That
is unjust in itself, and tempts the developer to mistreat the users
in other ways.
I don't think that I am wide off the mark with regard to the statement
I actually made rather than John's interpretation of it.