How close does the Pyra's design come to respecting your freedom?

[rygD]

I didn't want to get stuck in this thread again.

By funding those that write/sell proprietary software you are telling them, and the rest of the world, that this is the way to go. You are funding their future projects of this nature, and helping them advertise or spread their software and propaganda.

Yes, using proprietary software has a negative effect on society, but it's indirect. Most free/libre software activists don't consider it to be unethical for individuals to use proprietary. RMS even says so explicitly in his talks about libre software (like this one), when he says that governments and schools are an exception and do have a moral duty to use only libre software.

I agree about governments, however unless free/libre software is widely used in the area/workforce, it is probably best for students to be exposed to what they will work with outside of school.  I know some employers train their newly hired employees, but not all, and some students work while in school, or start working immediately after school.  None of this is really what I was trying to talk about, but it is closely related.  It would also help if everyone followed standards.

It continues to be a problem for me when bringing slides created using Impress to a computer that I do not own for a presentation and everything is messed up when using Power Point.

Useful to note: if you're willing to forgo animations and sounds and stuff like that, you can convert the presentation to PDF, and it'll be much more portable that way.

When I have the option I either install LibreOffice if it hasn't been already, or I use Power Point to make the presentation.  I prefer things simple (a picture or two, and a few words or key points per slide, unless I need to list things like statistics or specs or whatever...I hate when people just read slides to the people they are presenting to).  The problem is, I am sometimes told that I must include transition effects, stupid sounds, videos, and other things that I think are irritating (videos are useful sometimes, but I don't think they need to be on the slides).  

So, yeah, I agree that is a good option if possible, and it would keep things closer to what I prefer.

I disagree with much of what the FSF says, but I do agree with some ideas.  Perhaps you missed the point where I was supporting commercial libre software, just not proprietary software, commercial or not.  How about you tell me where I was wrong?  Does using proprietary software not suggest that tying the hands of users is a acceptable?

No, using proprietary software doesn't suggest that at all. There could be any number of reasons to choose a proprietary software package over a "free" one, and there is no way to derive the reasons behind the choice from the choice itself.

I would also add that the majority of users get no direct benefit from being able to inspect or modify the source of a program so in most cases they have no reason to care if the software is "free" or not, as long as it suits their purpose.

My examples are those that I have encountered.  I have friends and family members that were using Microsoft Office, and felt that they had no other choice.  When they were shown other options it turned out that sometimes things would get messed up when trying to open or modify files using other options since they left them as the default option when they originally saved the files.  It continues to be a problem for me when bringing slides created using Impress to a computer that I do not own for a presentation and everything is messed up when using Power Point.  Anything where a regular subscription fee is paid further takes advantage of users since they can't pay once and continue using the software, even if unsupported.  This is only at the surface level.  Things can be much worse if your software is doing things you don't know about, and that aren't documented.  There are many other potential problems.

I'm sorry but exactly how does that relate to whether the programs are free or non-free? These types of compatibility issues are going to exist any time you have different programs which do the same thing in different ways, regardless of whether the programs are free or proprietary. You could just as easily use the exact same argument to argue that the free software option is that one that should be avoided.

I couldn't tell you what libre-office is doing under the hood, and while it's possible to look into that by viewing the source, most people wouldn't understand most of it if they did.
I've also had cases where I've looked for documentation for free software and had no end of trouble finding any.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the benefits of free software, but most of those benefits are only benefits to a select subset of users, or in specific situations. To anyone else there is little reason to care about "software freedom" as the FSF defines it, as long as they have the freedom to use whatever software works best for them.

-Neelix

Long story short, if Microsoft Office was libre software users wouldn't be "stuck" with it.  It wouldn't require every user to go and make their own office suite, just a handful that want to ensure there is compatibility for everyone else.  Free/libre software is not just about having access to source code.  That is open source, a different thing.  The problem I see, and this why I don't really fit with the FSF way of thinking, is that companies with what I consider to be broken proprietary software prey on their customers and users.  Not everyone knows what they are looking for or what they need to be worried about, and they don't know where to get this information.  When they ask, most people that are only slightly more educated than they are will suggest what everyone else is using or what they know about, even if it has, or will create, problems.  

Being able to see source also helps for a lot of privacy/security concerns (and you don't need every user to do this, just those that have the skills and can understand what they are looking at).  I see open source as being a good middle ground, especially when it comes to security concerns, but I see libre software as being more concerned about all users.  Both are only going to be of full advantage to a very small number of people, but there are indirect advantages, just as there are both direct and inderect advantages and disadvantages of proprietary software.   I personally use whatever works when I must, but I do have a preference, and feel that by going with the libre option I am making a choice that will potentially lead to benefits for a wider number of people.

Now I see that onpon4 already said some of that and more (requested features or changes, which I have used as an explanation of benefits in conversations before)...

And there is a whole new page I still have to dig through.  

 

[rygD]

Grench, I haven't redistributed any of your posts, so I guess I'm guilty of censoring you. Also, you haven't redistributed any of my posts, so you're guilty of censoring me. Amazing how easy censorship is these days, eh?

Can a mod delete this post?  

I think that is what he was getting it.  I am somewhat confused on the issue, since I don't know where they stand on users of the official forums directing other users to the unofficial evilrepo where everyone can see.  I am personally more concerned with that.  That was one of the things I understood to be a problem, but then I tried to read the requirements.  I forgot most of it, and was still confused by a couple things and had some questions.  I don't really care, so I just tried to follow along here which helped clear up some things.

But I do have a question for the vegans, who use this sort of language ("murdered flesh") to rail against the omnivores among us.

I am not vegan.  I say "dead animals" and variations on that as general terms more often than I say "meat".  I don't know when or why this started, but it was long ago.  I don't eat living animals, or at least not intentionally (if an insect flies down my throat it wasn't exactly my choice), and that may have been the reason for my making the distinction.  There are people and animals that do eat living animals.  I may have eaten animals that weren't murdered, yet were not alive when I ate them.  I do eat living plants.

 

[FaeMinx]

I was being deliberately provocative with that statement...


For some vegetarians it literally is like this.


Asking to cook meat in their house is tantamount to saying:


'I have pieces of my latest victim with me, may I use your equipment to prepare my sacrifice as I must pay homage to my evil master by consuming it's flesh. That Ok with you?'


I don't require humans to do anything, but I will say that so long as they eat whatever they can find or desire to, thinking only of their own gratification and survival, and perhaps extending to the rest of their family unit... They really are no different from any other expression of nature.


I can't say for certain, but my overriding impression of those who come to vegetarianism, is that it is a choice they make to reflect a 'transcendant' process that has begun within them. A lot pay lip service, or only do it because their religion tells them they have to (I actually don't even regard these people as true vegetarians). A true vegetarian, imo, is someone who has begun to recognize the divine nature of all life, and that they and all life are one. They can no longer eat meat because it is like asking them to eat their own foot or their beloved little sister.


For a true vegetarian it is an ethical / spiritual choice. Not a dietary one.


As this is the reason I wish to be vegetarian, the label or 'status' is of no interest to me.


In truth it is not just flesh I do not wish to consume, but plant life as well.


I actually want to remove myself from the process of consumption completely. My intention is to eventually sustain myself purely on source energy, and to provide that source energy unconditionally to all who seek it.


That will grant me True freedom.


In order to achieve this I need to apply extreme and seemingly impossible conditions upon what I may or may not do, what I may think or say, and especially how I treat anyone that comes to me seeking source energy. I am responsible.

 

[_wb_]

I think it's extremely rude and actually hilariously absurd for a meat eater to visit a vegetarian and expect the vegetarian to cook meat for them, or to even have meat in the house for the guests to cook themselves. Hell, let's even go so far as to say that if the guests had any respect for their hosts, they wouldn't even be so rude and insensitive as to even suggest denaturing and consuming the flesh of murdered creatures in the same house.


My god! What a suggestion...

 
I think it's nice to respect other's viewpoints, and not expect to eat meat when going over to a vegetarian's house.  (It's actually pretty healthy to eat vegetarian-style more often than you eat meat.)  But I do have a question for the vegans, who use this sort of language ("murdered flesh") to rail against the omnivores among us.


Other animals "murder" other animals (e.g. wolves eat chickens, deer, etc.), and sometimes just for fun (killer whales come to mind).  Does it really make sense to require of humans a higher standard than other animals?  If so, are we really that special?

Spoiler

Incidentally, I do believe we are special, but at present (with my limited understanding) I can only see a foundation for veganism in biblical creationism, where humans started out eating plants only, and death/disease/murder only entered the world after sin did.  I don't know how many vegans subscribe to that viewpoint...  Even then it's a bit inconsistent, unless you don't trust God in allowing people to eat animals after Noah's time...

I am personally a vegetarian for about 20 years now. My reason for being a vegetarian is as follows: (but I'm probably not a very typical vegetarian)

• I don't consider it wrong to eat animals (though it may very well be unsustainable and unhealthy to eat it in large quantities like the average American)
• I don't really like the way in which animals are bred in modern "breeding factories", but that is also not my reason for being a vegetarian
• From my personal gastronomical/culinary point of view, dead animal cadavers, baked or otherwise, are simply not at all appealing to me. To the contrary, when I see chopped up dead animals, whether it's on my plate or roadkill, my immediate instinctive reaction is disgust, not "yummy".

For me, to not eat cows or pigs feels just as "natural" and "self-evident" as it is to not eat cats, dogs, monkeys or humans for non-vegetarians in most cultures. It's a psychological/cultural thing: I simply get disgusted by the idea. I have no problem with other people eating meat, that does not really disgust me because I'm used to it, as long as I don't have to eat it myself. But I do prefer not to have to deal with meat: e.g. I avoid buying or preparing meat for other people, just like most non-vegetarians probably don't look forward to putting dead cats in their fridge.

Also, shouldn't the freedoms be given different bits on a binary scale?

• Freedom 1 is to use the program,
• 2 is having free access to the source (if you have obtained the program legally) and being able to change it for your own private use,
• 4 is having freedom to redistribute binaries of the program to your neighbor (charging however much you want, or for free),
• 8 is freedom to redistribute your modified software to your friends (with whatever fees you like), but needing to provide your modified source if they ask for it (with a viral license on the source, of course) -- GPL
• 16 is freedom to redistribute your modified binaries (with fees, etc.) without having to disclose its source -- MIT

Let me know if that's (roughly) correct.

Yes, but the more significant bits tend to imply the less significant ones (e.g. you can't have access to the source without being able to use the program), so I don't really see why you would represent this as a bitmask.

You could add "public domain" as the "most free of all". However, more free (MIT, public domain) also means that others get the freedom to take away freedoms, so in the long term, I do think that GPL or similar "viral" licenses are better to ensure the long-term freedom of a line of software. E.g. if Linux would have been released under MIT or public domain license instead of GPL, then my guess is that by now there would only be some crappy old Linux version, and in addition to that, there would perhaps be a Google Linux, an Oracle Linux, an IBM Linux, maybe even a Microsoft Linux, and so on, all proprietary variants of the original Linux, more popular and better polished than the original, but closed-source (or open-source with several restrictions).

 

[Neelix]

Long story short, if Microsoft Office was libre software users wouldn't be "stuck" with it. It wouldn't require every user to go and make their own office suite, just a handful that want to ensure there is compatibility for everyone else.  Free/libre software is not just about having access to source code.  That is open source, a different thing.  The problem I see, and this why I don't really fit with the FSF way of thinking, is that companies with what I consider to be broken proprietary software prey on their customers and users.  Not everyone knows what they are looking for or what they need to be worried about, and they don't know where to get this information.  When they ask, most people that are only slightly more educated than they are will suggest what everyone else is using or what they know about, even if it has, or will create, problems.

If Microsoft Office wasn't popular users wouldn't be "stuck" with it. This works both ways, If someone with a preference for Microsoft Office and it's specific feature set was forced to use Libre Office for work, they might see Libre Office as being broken and consider themselves as being "stuck" with it. Both points of view are valid, and unaffected by which software is libre and which is proprietary. This is a matter of personal preference.

I would also add that even if you view Microsoft products as broken, this is only an argument against Microsoft products, not against proprietary software as a whole, it's not fair to tar all proprietary software developers with the same brush.

Being able to see source also helps for a lot of privacy/security concerns (and you don't need every user to do this, just those that have the skills and can understand what they are looking at).  I see open source as being a good middle ground, especially when it comes to security concerns, but I see libre software as being more concerned about all users.  Both are only going to be of full advantage to a very small number of people, but there are indirect advantages, just as there are both direct and inderect advantages and disadvantages of proprietary software.   I personally use whatever works when I must, but I do have a preference, and feel that by going with the libre option I am making a choice that will potentially lead to benefits for a wider number of people.

That there are advantages and disadvantages to both free and proprietary software is exactly the point I've been trying to make. These need to be weighed by each user on a case by case basis. For some people, and in some situations, the proprietary software is going to be better choice. For others free software is the only way to go. Either way, it's up to the individual end user to decide that, not the FSF.

-Neelix

 

[_wb_]

Long story short, if Microsoft Office was libre software users wouldn't be "stuck" with it. It wouldn't require every user to go and make their own office suite, just a handful that want to ensure there is compatibility for everyone else.  Free/libre software is not just about having access to source code.  That is open source, a different thing.  The problem I see, and this why I don't really fit with the FSF way of thinking, is that companies with what I consider to be broken proprietary software prey on their customers and users.  Not everyone knows what they are looking for or what they need to be worried about, and they don't know where to get this information.  When they ask, most people that are only slightly more educated than they are will suggest what everyone else is using or what they know about, even if it has, or will create, problems.

If Microsoft office wasn't popular users wouldn't be "stuck" with it. This works both ways, If someone with a preference for Microsoft office and it's specific feature set was forced to use libre office for work, they might see libre office as being broken and consider themselves as being "stuck" with it. Both points of view are valid, and unaffected by which software is libre and which is proprietary. This is a matter of personal preference.

Not really. If you think LibreOffice is broken in some way, you can fix it. If you think Microsoft Office is broken in some way, you can't. There's a significant difference in that respect.

Governments and schools should not use proprietary file formats at all, at least not if alternatives exist. Governments and schools should be neutral, they shouldn't promote/push one particular proprietary product.

 

[rygD]

Long story short, if Microsoft Office was libre software users wouldn't be "stuck" with it. It wouldn't require every user to go and make their own office suite, just a handful that want to ensure there is compatibility for everyone else.  Free/libre software is not just about having access to source code.  That is open source, a different thing.  The problem I see, and this why I don't really fit with the FSF way of thinking, is that companies with what I consider to be broken proprietary software prey on their customers and users.  Not everyone knows what they are looking for or what they need to be worried about, and they don't know where to get this information.  When they ask, most people that are only slightly more educated than they are will suggest what everyone else is using or what they know about, even if it has, or will create, problems.

If Microsoft office wasn't popular users wouldn't be "stuck" with it. This works both ways, If someone with a preference for Microsoft office and it's specific feature set was forced to use libre office for work, they might see libre office as being broken and consider themselves as being "stuck" with it. Both points of view are valid, and unaffected by which software is libre and which is proprietary. This is a matter of personal preference.

I would also add that even if you view Microsoft products as broken, this is only an argument against Microsoft products, not against proprietary software as a whole, it's not fair to tar all proprietary software developers with the same brush.

I was not saying all proprietary or all Microsoft software was broken.  I said that those that put out broken software are preying on their users and customers.

You are correct about popularity, however...nevermind.  I don't come here to have enjoyment sucked out of being here.  

You are right.  You win.

I understand that you view this all from the perspective of only what applies to individual users.  I view it from the perspective of how the choices (of one or many) affect others.

 

[Neelix]

Not really. If you think LibreOffice is broken in some way, you can fix it. If you think Microsoft Office is broken in some way, you can't. There's a significant difference in that respect.

In theory that might be true. In practice there are any number of situations where that would not be a practical solution.

-Neelix

 

[FaeMinx]

Any choice any one makes affects every one.


But it is unreasonable for one to expect every one or any one to know one or that they are one.

 

[comradekingu]

From a business point of view, in a deterministic world where chaos theory prevails, having closed source, or the ability to go closed, is a proven attack. It was never security through obscurity, which doesnt work for you if you are big enough to be a bully.

The balance is shifting however, maybe there will never be another MS at its hayday of evildoing, they simply cant do that anymore. Apple is a mixed bag, moreso in its ability to go closed at will.

So while the trend is for more openness, its still with control. Meanwhile in the FOSS world, things are steadily getting better. Or maybe control has taken new form there.

I think as it all merges, companies will see a lot more of direct benefit in going with the FOSS option, as it is no longer just software.

Not to them because they aren't behemoths, not to the public because awareness and return of investment is shifting focus, and with it, the money.

 

[diligentcircle]

I don't know where they stand on users of the official forums directing other users to the unofficial evilrepo where everyone can see.

I can tell you that the Trisquel forum doesn't have any sort of censorship policy in place for things like this. The community guidelines include not promoting proprietary software, but I have never seen anyone's posts get deleted or even moved to the Troll Hole (a forum for posts that don't belong in the Trisquel forums) for such violations; instead, someone else from the community tends to politely inform the user that they have violated the community guidelines and request they not do so again. I would suppose if someone were to ignore the request and keep recommending proprietary software on purpose, such posts would get moved to the Troll Hole, unless they were so prolific as to count as spam.


I see no reason to think the forum for a RYF device would have to be any more strict than one for a GNU FSDG distro.

 

[comradekingu]

This is a blog post from one of the replicant devs. FSF supports this project with money. They even made this fundraiser.

 

[Grench]

I don't know where they stand on users of the official forums directing other users to the unofficial evilrepo where everyone can see.

I can tell you that the Trisquel forum doesn't have any sort of censorship policy in place for things like this. The community guidelines include not promoting proprietary software, but I have never seen anyone's posts get deleted or even moved to the Troll Hole (a forum for posts that don't belong in the Trisquel forums) for such violations; instead, someone else from the community tends to politely inform the user that they have violated the community guidelines and request they not do so again. I would suppose if someone were to ignore the request and keep recommending proprietary software on purpose, such posts would get moved to the Troll Hole, unless they were so prolific as to count as spam.


I see no reason to think the forum for a RYF device would have to be any more strict than one for a GNU FSDG distro.

Thank you for proving my point.  Regardless of the means of enforcement, whether it be officially by the manufacturer or pawned off to the community, in your example there is a prohibition of communication about non-free solutions.  So, it is deliberately stifling speech about civil and legal alternatives.

Here we also have some prohibition of communications.  Nothing racist, hateful, hurtful or illegal.  That last one is seen to include references to obtaining non-free software by anything other than legal means.  So, it is as free as civility and the law will allow.

 

[Haraldur]

If Microsoft Office wasn't popular users wouldn't be "stuck" with it. This works both ways, If someone with a preference for Microsoft Office and it's specific feature set was forced to use Libre Office for work, they might see Libre Office as being broken and consider themselves as being "stuck" with it. Both points of view are valid, and unaffected by which software is libre and which is proprietary. This is a matter of personal preference.

No. If Microsoft Office was Free Software, it could be forked to improve it (like with LibreOffice vs. OpenOffice.org). If Microsoft Office was Free Software, but too far gone to be improved by forking, then at the very least the code for interpreting its godawful (so I am told) proprietary (currently) formats could be ripped out (assuming a sane internal structure in Microsoft Office) and added to LibreOffice, OpenOffice.org, KOffice/Calligra etc. etc. etc.. There would be no lock-in as far as file-formats go, as every program could be reasonably expected to make use of the DOCX-version-2014 library to open the latest versions of the .docx format. Or, if it is as horrible as expected, there would, at least, be easy-to-acquire conversion software that worked perfectly.

Vendor-lock-in is very unlikely with Free Software (I would love to be told of some examples of Free Software vendor-lock-in -- I expect that these would be for very complex software).

More broadly, I think one of the biggest problems with RYF, the GPL and, indeed, most things done by the FSF and the GNU project, is complexity and confusion. While not as good, in general, as the GPL, the X11/MIT licence does have the virtue of being very simple, with obvious effects. Not so for the GPL -- distribution of proprietary software alongside GPLed software, vs derivatives, for example: how does one tell the difference without having significant knowledge of law?

As for the complexities of RYF, this thread is all the evidence required (either that, or it is not communicated competently).

Of course, this does not imply that less complex solutions would work/be better than these ones.

In the mean-time, I think Debian-style treatment of software and licences is the most practical compromise available: here is some clearly labelled non-free software, use your own judgement and use it at your own risk. In my case, I would use the 3D drivers if (and only if) I needed them for some software/game, and I would be a bit more cautious with the WIFI driver (as malice would be more obviously harmful, here). For other cases, in the long term, I think sandboxes are part of the answer (I believe the GNOME people are working on that sort of thing), and, in the meantime, a FOSS emulator is sort-of a sandbox for games on emulated systems, so those (mostly non-free) games can be safely used in those circumstances.

In the very very long term, of course, we should abolish copyright. That would reduce the code vs. data problem discussed earlier. What is the difference? Turing-completeness? I suppose that that is the best theoretical distinction, though it is possible to take, say, a jpeg, convert it to raw format (that is, decompress it), and then treat it as code in such esoteric languages as Piet -- indeed, if it was a concatenative language such as Forth, then every possible image would be a valid (if crashing) program. There is no fundamental difference between data and code if all data can be interpreted as code. So, make sure none of your images are executable, nor your novels, nor that they might be opened by some executable without your knowledge, and sandbox if you can. The main practical difference is what access the code/data has to your secrets and to functions of your machine required to keep it on, secure and efficient.

 

[Neelix]

No. If Microsoft Office was Free Software, it could be forked to improve it (like with LibreOffice vs. OpenOffice.org). If Microsoft Office was Free Software, but too far gone to be improved by forking, then at the very least the code for interpreting its godawful (so I am told) proprietary (currently) formats could be ripped out (assuming a sane internal structure in Microsoft Office) and added to LibreOffice, OpenOffice.org, KOffice/Calligra etc. etc. etc.. There would be no lock-in as far as file-formats go, as every program could be reasonably expected to make use of the DOCX-version-2014 library to open the latest versions of the .docx format. Or, if it is as horrible as expected, there would, at least, be easy-to-acquire conversion software that worked perfectly.

If Microsoft Office were Free then there wouldn't have been any reason to create Open-Office in the first place.

There's more to compatibility than just file formats though, for example there's also macro languages, and differences in how similar but not quite identical functions work that are also likely to trip up users of advanced features when moving from one package to another. If it were as simple as you say then (moving on to another example) I should be able to pick any firefox add-on and expect it to work perfectly in chromium (or vice versa) simply by running it through an "easy to acquire" conversion filter -- after all both are distributed as free software.

-Neelix

 

[_jr_]

Why should I care to contribute https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90887 unless caring about software freedom were a moral obligation? It is my right to keep the patch for myself or even sell fixed versions to users of the affected software (the mesa license is not copyleft), but all these options would be disrespectful to the developers, especially the volunteer ones, and the users. Taking the moral obligation away makes volunteers look like idiots and users like parasites which is a perfidious thing to do. It's fine not being able to code, it's fine having to feed your family first, it's fine to enjoy your life, but above a certain level (which probably pretty much everybody on this board exceeds) there is a moral obligation to care about other's freedom (including the software releated ones) just as much as there is an obligation to care about poverty, injustice, sustainability, ...

So your argument is that volunteers only volunteer if they feel morally obligated to? That otherwise they're idiots? I can't agree with that. People naturally want to give to other people (and doing so is often mutually beneficial and has immediate value including social benefit), but they also naturally want to better their own situations, give to those nearer to them, etc. I really don't think you're in a position to judge whether or not people are beyond this "level" you talk about.

I can choose to do proprietary software, or I can choose to do nothing. The fact that you think the former is unethical and the latter is fine doesn't really compute for me. No, I know the argument that this contributes to people's attitudes about software and whatnot but I can't agree with that. As far as rms is concerned you can do software on your own computer and never give it to anyone and that's fine - apparently from what you're saying that's unethical too. Actually it sounds like you're saying anyone who knows how to code should be spending copious amounts of time on free software, and of course if you don't code you should at least be trying to learn right? But you said it's fine not being able to code so I don't know.

Sorry, I wasn't expressing myself adequately. Basically I just wanted to say that a) Software freedom is actually quite important in this world and b ) if one can afford to be nice then it is usually the right thing to be nice. Developing Drastic and making it available to the public is a good thing irrelevant of license conditions. Providing Drastic for free to the Pandora community is obviously wonderful. If it would make no difference to you providing it with source and a permissive license would be an even better thing. If it makes a difference (as it most probably does), the answer becomes more difficult. It might not be the right thing. But simply not thinking about this option or dismissing it outright (which I don't think you are doing, but wich I was getting from Neelix' post, possibly unjustly) would be wrong. That is what I meant with moral obligation. Everybody is responsible for their own decisions, but as a member of a society it is often the right thing to help improve said society (again: considering one's own individual needs). That RMS decided to do what he did is his personal responsibility and not necessarily an ideal to follow. Still it is worth thinking about including (as lame as that sounds) what one can do to make the world a better place.

And I was not posting that link to show how superior I am (actually I'm not nearly as good as I could be), more as an illustration of a situation where caring for software freedom is obvious (and as an illustration that an open source graphics driver can be useful even if you have no clue of graphics hardware).

 

[Haraldur]

If Microsoft Office were Free then there wouldn't have been any reason to create Open-Office in the first place. There's more to compatibility than just file formats though, for example there's also macro languages, and differences in how similar but not quite identical functions work that are also likely to trip up users of advanced features when moving from one package to another. If it were as simple as you say then (moving on to another example) I should be able to pick any firefox add-on and expect it to work perfectly in chromium (or vice versa) simply by running it through an "easy to acquire" conversion filter -- after all both are distributed as free software.

 

LibreOffice exists, as does OpenOffice.org, and Calligra and others.

File formats are a very noticeable compatibility problem. They certainly affect LibreOffice users more than the macro system.

 

[diligentcircle]

Thank you for proving my point. Regardless of the means of enforcement, whether it be officially by the manufacturer or pawned off to the community, in your example there is a prohibition of communication about non-free solutions. So, it is deliberately stifling speech about civil and legal alternatives.

Uh, no. In the Trisquel community, proprietary software is considered off-topic and inappropriate, not "prohibited" speech. The absolute worst I would expect (and I don't even remember ever seeing this, though it could just be flawed memory on my part) is the topic being moved to the Troll Hole, which as I said is a forum for off-topic posts. I think you'll find that every forum is like this. Post something in the Pandora General Talk forum that has nothing to do with the Pandora, and it'll probably get moved to Off-Topic General Talk.

 

[ible]

"Troll Hole" sounds a lot more charged than "Off Topic" however

 

[Rockthesmurf]

I still find this all very puzzling!

The notion that it would have been 'better' for Exophase to release DraStic with source code and a permissive license just doesn't compute for me. I mean; better for who? I suspect it has worked out better for Exophase to release it as he has done. Each of us surely can make up their mind what is better? So if he decides his current model is better for him, then guess what, it really is better for him (as he is the judge)!

The notion of morals coming into it is just ridiculous to me. Morals are personal, what one person thinks is morally correct will not necessarily match with what someone else thinks is correct.

If someone writes an open source, permissive licensed DS emulator, which is better than DraStic, I'd find it fair enough that it is officially promoted above DraStic in any official Pandora/Pyra material (websites, emails, etc.) but as it stands right now DraStic is the best, we have it for free on the Pandora, I suspect it is likely to help convince more people to buy Pandora/Pyra than any weird RYF certificate ever would. Based on this it is absolutely bonkers to consider any licenses/certificates that would mean software like this needs to be hidden away in the dark.

Anyway, I feel all of this has been said multiple times before, I half feel it is wasted key presses repeating, but then I figure if I don't then users will just see new threads about this stuff which don't have enough resistance, and might start to think that the RYF backers are beginning to win!! Maybe ZXDunny will drop by soon and send some expletives in for good measure