Linked by Linux Review on Tue 20th Mar 2012 17:07 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 511302
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-06-21
Only inasmuch as anyone taking a principled moral stand is off their rocker. While I agree with you that no real harm is being done, in a philosophical vacuum you are, by using that software, contributing to the larger problem and helping to remove the impetus to have free software developed that fills that need. An idealist can often have difficulty stepping outside the vacuum, but I'm not sure that this is a bad thing. The world needs idealists.
My own personal philosophy is to use free software when it suits my needs, but to use non-free software when this isn't the case. For example, there are better (as in technically superior) non-free mail programs than Thunderbird, but TB does everything I need it to do, so that's what I use.
That's fine. But Stallman is tackling what he percieves to be a social issue, not meeting of the needs of individuals. As such, from his perspective, this attitude is part of the problem. You are meeting your needs at the expense of the larger potential for social improvement.
Again - not saying that I agree But I can certainly understand where he is coming from.