Re: Links to javascript-based websites from orgmode.org: Paypal and Github

[Jeremie Juste <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>]

Hello,


For some reason, I increased the score of an email, when the body of the
email contains "discouraged" :-). The argument raised by Timothy
particularly interesting. 

So I've taken the time to read this thread again to understand better
the issue.

As far as I understand, there is currently no
technology that can send electronic payment to someone and at the same time achieve
three goals.

- Promote user freedom (by running free javascript)
- Is a legal form of payment (crypto currency) [1]
- Is decentralized and anonymous

An exception is the FSF which has a special agreement to run free JS,
but it is something that might be costly to implement for individuals.

I think we can all agree that freesoftware developpers and
maintainers are in many cases underfunded for the value they create.  

[1]:https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/24/22691472/china-central-bank-cryptocurrency-illegal-bitcoin

On Friday,  1 Jul 2022 at 13:53, Tim Cross wrote:
> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
>> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
>> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>>
>>   > I do make a serious point: by linking to liberapay who are actively
>>   > searching for ways to get rid of proprietary software, those links are
>>   > most likely to become usable without proprietary software once a
>>   > practical method to donate without proprietary software exists.
>>
>> I agree that links to liberapay might someday work without the donor's
>> running nonfree software.  But that is not likely to occur this year,
>> and for it to occur in this decade is a long shot.
>>
>> So please don't put links to liberapay into GNU package web pages.
>
> Please explain how you can argue that position when the FSF has such a
> link on their web page? Why is it OK for the FSF to do this to raise
> funds, but not acceptable for projects to do the same? 

Here, I think that the FSF, even while having a free JS alternative,  is
still giving the freedom to potential donors to
restrict their own freedom to fund project that are important for them, by
using Paypal.

My question is the following:  Can we have the freedom to deliberately
restrict our freedom to fund projects that we care about, that give us
freedom in other dimensions?

I am not suggesting to encourage anyone to use non free method of
payments, but allowing them to do so if they want to.  I'd like to see
solutions towards free electronic payments emerge eventually, but I'm
not sure if restricting funding of free software will make that happen.


Best regards,
Jeremie Juste

In the long run we are all dead.