Discussion of non-free-as-defined-by-FSF software (was: [ANN] [OT] New Android app (Orgzly))

[Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl>]

*NOTE* This email contains a strong opinion about a certain three-letter
organization.  If you have a problem with that, you can stop reading
right about now.  ;-)



On 2015-01-23, at 20:18, Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com> wrote:

> Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes:
>
>> On 2015-01-22, at 17:41, Jose E. Marchesi <jemarch@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>>>     *NOTE* It's about an app which is *not* open source (some parts of code
>>>     will opened, see below).  If you have a problem with that, you can stop
>>>     reading right about now...
>>>
>>> Please stop using the GNU mailing lists to promote proprietary software.
>>
>> It might be the case that I do not understand something.
>>
>> AFAIR, there was a recent discussion on another GNU mailing list about
>> usability of Emacs under Windows.  (Maybe it was somewhere else, I'm not
>> sure, then my question is theoretical.)  A few people claimed that Emacs
>> under Windows is fully functional and works well.  Would this also be
>> considered "promoting proprietary software"?
>
> The point here is that the FSF is a charitable nonprofit which promotes
> free software.  Their servers have usage guidelines:
>
>   https://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php
>
> Basically, helping Free software to work on non-Free operating systems
> is ok, as long as the non-Free OS is not the proprietary target and the
> software works best (or equal) on Free systems.    Supporting or
> advertising non-Free software is not ok.
>
> So the opinions of our hosts are pretty clear.

1. I see, it is indeed pretty clear.  I did not know that, and I am
thankful that you pointed it out.  (In particular, this seems to more or
less answer my questions.)  Incidentally, it makes me satisfied that
I decided not to sign the FSF copyright papers: I do not want to be
formally involved in any way with this organization (for instance, I do
not want them to have any piece of paper with my personal signature, nor
would I buy any book from them knowing that this way I would support
them with my money).

2. I would also prefer people here to express information about the
rules which might not be known to e.g. anybody who learned about list
from the Org-mode site and did not want to spend time on the FSF website
with similarly factual way as you (and let me make this very clear:
I again thank you for that, even if we do disagree), not with hostility
toward a person who (like me, and apparently other people) does not
treat software as religion and does not consider non-free (as defined by
RMS) software necessary immoral.  (And that's good for me, personally:
if I were to treat software as religion, I might consider switching to
Vim at this very moment, and it would be a nuisance, since I both am not
accustomed to it and consider it technically inferior to Emacs.  The
current situation also makes me uncomfortable: I did recommend Emacs to
many people, sometimes successfully, and from now on I'm going to
consider it my moral obligation to state clearly that when advertising
Emacs, I do not endorse any opinions of RMS or FSF – indeed, I would
rather warn people not to listen to them, or rather: to listen to them
while carefully judging what they hear.)

3. I would like to know where on the Internet I could discuss
Org-related topics in a free (“free as in freedom”, to quote RMS once
again) way, since clearly (and ironically, I'm inclined to add) this is
not possible on any mailing list hosted by the FSF.  Please note: I do
not consider freedom of speech an absolute value, and I do not consider
censorship necessarily immoral.  My criticism of the FSF is not that
they effectively endorse censorship of some kind; I'm fine with that, it
is their servers after all, they are the hosts and they write the rules.
(Although I find it a bit hypocritical that at the same time they
apparently deny programmers the somehow analogous right to license the
code they wrote using some non-FSF-approved license.)  My problem with
the FSF is that they represent and spread false moral views, and this is
something harmful.  (Even though I *do* agree with the FSF about many
things, e.g., many of the remarks on their "words to avoid" page are
definitely worth spreading.  OTOH, I am not convinced that free software
is necessarily the right answer to the problem they fight).

Regards,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University