At no time did RMS say 'Use inferior software because of the Freedoms'.
Methinks you misread RMS: He says don't use any software at all.
To free the citizens of cyberspace, we have to replace those non-free programs, not accept them.
RMS explicitly states that we should not accept, not install, and not run non-free software alongside our free software. And, that's just in this article. Another interview with him earlier this year has him saying it's better to do without entirely, or to start your own project, rather than install any commercial software. All of this is because of the, "moral unacceptability" of non-free software. Perhaps you see a business cost/benefit analysis based on his unsupported assertion of "moral unacceptability". I don't.
He admits that non-free software doesn't even exist in many cases to serve the business need. Instead of businesses attending to their business, he wants them developing free software.
The original response, and the purpose for this thread, is to merely say that users are not fixated on his philosophical bent as some developers might be; and that RMS is an ineffective advocate for an untenable (and perhaps unneccessarily religeous) position.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Real products v. Philosophical byproducts
Posted by: charleyb on January 09, 2004 12:40 AMMethinks you misread RMS: He says don't use any software at all.
RMS explicitly states that we should not accept, not install, and not run non-free software alongside our free software. And, that's just in this article. Another interview with him earlier this year has him saying it's better to do without entirely, or to start your own project, rather than install any commercial software. All of this is because of the, "moral unacceptability" of non-free software. Perhaps you see a business cost/benefit analysis based on his unsupported assertion of "moral unacceptability". I don't.
He admits that non-free software doesn't even exist in many cases to serve the business need. Instead of businesses attending to their business, he wants them developing free software.
The original response, and the purpose for this thread, is to merely say that users are not fixated on his philosophical bent as some developers might be; and that RMS is an ineffective advocate for an untenable (and perhaps unneccessarily religeous) position.
I don't see a response to that.
#