Linked by David Adams on Tue 5th Aug 2008 21:16 UTC, submitted by fsmag
GNU, GPL, Open Source Terry Hancock offers a detailed dissection of the critical difference between power and freedom when it comes to understanding why Microsoft and GNU/Linux respectively are playing different games - and freedom is the only game in town for the free software. Read the full story at Freesoftware Magazine
Permalink for comment 325848
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: One nice point ...
by pinky on Wed 6th Aug 2008 08:50 UTC in reply to "One nice point ..."
Member since:

Well, I kind of got lost in the middle of the article, but I did want to highlight one thing:

Freedom cannot be forced on people. Freedom to choose GNU/Linux means also the freedom to choose Windows as well. We can argue that it's a bad deal, but we don’t have the right to force people to choose one over the other. Nor should we pass value judgements on them for their choice: we don't know the basis of their decisions, nor can we claim superior knowledge of their business.

Stallman, are you reading this ? ;)

Stallman doesn't have to read this. I'm not the "lawyer" of RMS but i have listen to many of his talks and speak with many people from the FSF (mostly FSFE because i live in Europe and you can find them on many GNU/Linux Tradeshows).
Nobody from them wants to force people to use Free Software. They argue why Free Software is important and i think that's their right as it is the right of e.g. Greenpeace to argue why environment protection is important.
Also their goal is not to force people to use Free Software but to create a situation in which people really can choose to use Free Software or non-Free Software. Today people often doesn't have this choice. They don't use Windows or MacOS because they like it to be forbidden to share with their friends or they like it to be dependent on one company. They use it because they have to, either because for their tasks only non-Free Software exists or because they have their data in proprietary file formats and so they can't switch even if they want.

So the goals are:
(1) Have Free Software for every task
(2) Establish Open Standards so that you can communicate with everyone and freely choose your application.

That's the goal of the FSFs and RMS as i understand them and they have confident that if they reach (1) and (2) most people will use Free Software because "forbidden to share" is not the feature which make people choose non-Free Software.
But the important think is that people have a real choice today often people don't habe this choice.

Edited 2008-08-06 08:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 9