4 ms·

"except when you spend 2 hours in a conference explaining why people should use free software. At that point, as a service user, RMS says something about someon

"except when you spend 2 hours in a conference explaining why people should use free software. At that point, as a service user, RMS says something about someone else's computer." As to "spend[ing] 2 hours in a conference explaining why people should use free software": Be careful about the trap of concision as explained by Herman and Chomsky in "Manufacturing Consent". It takes time to lay out new ideas, ideas which mainstream media never discuss. Software freedom is still (even 30+ years after the fact) regarded as a new idea. Regarding saying something about someone else's computer: I don't clearly understand your point. Are you sure this isn't giving someone convincing reasons to favor free software? Can you point to an example of where RMS is a service user and makes demands of that service beyond recommending what they ought to do to get the software freedom they deserve? "I agree with the logic of your argument, but it sounds like a lawyer's argument : it's ok by the law eventhough i'ts not super "ethical"." What's not ethical about not having control over someone else's computer?

wiz21c 8y ago
ah, I like your arguments because I agree with them. But somehow I'm unable to drive my point home (so your arguments, while right, are not aimed at what I try to say :-)) :-( let's just say that what you say is logical but sounds a bit incoherent to me. I expect coherency at the level of one's choice : if I complain about a tool because it's non free, because it's spying, then I do my best to not use it, be it mine or someone else's. RMS says : "proprietary software represents an unacceptable danger to a free society" (citation from https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software ), but somehow proprietary software is acceptable when one needs to make a phone call... I'm not trying to nitpick about what RMS says ('cos I totally agree with him, and I perfectly understand what the whole thing is about), it's just that, on that occasion, I found the argument weak. I'll stop the argument here 'cos my english is not good enough to convey my idea precisely (and it's late) :-(

wiz21c 8y ago

ah, I like your arguments because I agree with them. But somehow I'm unable to drive my point home (so your arguments, while right, are not aimed at what I try to say :-)) :-( let's just say that what you say is logical but sounds a bit incoherent to me. I expect coherency at the level of one's choice : if I complain about a tool because it's non free, because it's spying, then I do my best to not use it, be it mine or someone else's. RMS says : "proprietary software represents an unacceptable danger to a free society" (citation from https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software ), but somehow proprietary software is acceptable when one needs to make a phone call... I'm not trying to nitpick about what RMS says ('cos I totally agree with him, and I perfectly understand what the whole thing is about), it's just that, on that occasion, I found the argument weak. I'll stop the argument here 'cos my english is not good enough to convey my idea precisely (and it's late) :-(