| |
| ▲ | simoncion 2 days ago | parent [-] | | To continue with the text of the rest of the section (with the footnotes present in the original removed): If you run a nonfree program on your computer, it denies your freedom; the immediate wrong is directed at you.
That does not mean you're an “evildoer” or “sinner” for running a nonfree program. When the harm you're doing is mainly to yourself, we hope you will stop, for your own sake.
Sometimes you may face great pressure to run a nonfree program; we don't say you must defy that pressure at all costs (though it is inspiring when someone does that), but we do urge you to look for occasions to where you can refuse, even in small ways.
If you recommend that others run the nonfree program, or lead them to do so, you're leading them to give up their freedom. Thus, we have a responsibility not to lead or encourage others to run nonfree software. Where the program uses a secret protocol for communication, as in the case of Skype, your own use of it pressures others to use it too, so it is especially important to avoid any use of these programs.
But there is one special case where using some nonfree software, and even urging others to use it, can be a positive thing. That's when the use of the nonfree software aims directly at putting an end to the use of that very same nonfree software.
| | |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Thanks, I wasn't trying to cherry pick or anything. But I don't think that the full text changes the substance of what is laid out in the first couple of paragraphs. The FSF (and by extension Stallman) refrains from calling the user names if he chooses to use nonfree software, presumably because they recognize that freedom must include the freedom to run any software at all, even if they consider it harmful. But they are quite clear that they do consider it harmful both to oneself and others to run nonfree software, even if it is useful. That, to me, is very much refusing to make concessions to practicality within their ideology. The only concession they do make is an explicitly ideological one, not a practical one! So again, this piece seems to me to support my claim, not to disprove it. | | |
| ▲ | simoncion 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > But they are quite clear that they do consider it harmful both to oneself and others to run nonfree software, even if it is useful. As we're seeing, time and time and time again, it is harmful. The benefits may outweigh the harms today, but unless the steward of that nonfree software is extraordinarily careful and forward-thinking (as it were), those relationships inevitably go bad and become coercive over time. As we know, Stallman is (and always has been) right about this. > That, to me, is very much refusing to make concessions to practicality within their ideology. 1) The last paragraph of the opening section is a plain and obvious concession to practicality: "But there is one special case where using some nonfree software ... can be a positive thing. That's when the use of the nonfree software aims directly at putting an end to the use of that very same nonfree software." 2) I'm not sure how saying "We'd be sad and would all be worse off if you used nonfree software, but do understand that there can be compelling real-world reasons to do so. Please don't use nonfree software, or -if that's not possible- consider small ways to avoid using it whenever opportunity presents itself." is anything but a concession to practicality. A hard-liner that refuses to make concessions to practicality wouldn't incorporate such a thing into their philosophy! Respectfully, are you sure you're not letting knowledge of how Stallman uses/manages/etc his personal computing devices influence your interpretation of what these essays and the FSF's philosophy are about? | | |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > As we're seeing, time and time and time again, it is harmful. It certainly is not harmful, in my view. I think that the FSF's position on this topic is ridiculous. No harm whatsoever is done by running a piece of closed source software on your computer. > The last paragraph of the opening section is a plain and obvious concession to practicality No, it's not, at all! It is ideological, not practical, to say that the only reason to deviate from one's ideology is if doing so advances the ideology even faster. | | |
| ▲ | simoncion a day ago | parent [-] | | > No harm whatsoever is done by running a piece of closed source software on your computer. So, I'm confused. What do you believe that Stallman is right about? If there's never any harm done by running nonfree software on your computer, then what's the problem? I must have misunderstood your commentary here [0] because this statement > The thing is... he seems to have been right the whole time. Companies really do want to lock you out of controlling the devices you own, and do so at the first opportunity. So... Stallman was right. certainly seems like you were claiming that there are harms inherent in the practice. > It is ideological, not practical, to say that the only reason to deviate from one's ideology is if doing so advances the ideology even faster. Not making a concession to practicality would be saying "There is no circumstance in which one should use nonfree software. Not even in the service of replacing that nonfree software with free software.". You're simply incorrect about this... especially when you also consider point #2 of the section you've quoted from. [0] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45036440> |
|
| |
| ▲ | fsflover 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Stallman himself was using a laptop with a proprietary BIOS before truly free laptops became available. I don't understand how this isn't a compromise. Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45025116 | |
| ▲ | const_cast 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | But... It IS harmful. And we know it's harmful. Because with each single person who decides to run a particular non free software, that's a tiiiiiny bit more vendor lock on, a tiny bit of control lost, of power, freedom, given up. And when enough people do this, what happens? Look at Google. Look at the post you're on. You tell me - what happens? He's not wrong at all - it's just uncomfortable. This is a side effect of capitalism or maybe humanity. Its nothing you or I can single-handedly solve, or cause. But we each contribute to it a tiny amount. |
|
|
|
