-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
____/ Homer on Friday 28 May 2010 14:19 : \____
> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>> Completely agreed. If Canonical wants to offer proprietary software
>> through their repositories, so be it. If you don't like that, you can
>> always use a different distro.
> For now, but if Canonical succeeds in its apparent quest for domination,
> and takes with it most of the GNU/Linux developers, then who'll be left
> to actually provide those "different distros"?
> And this ignores the fact that freedom is not something which one should
> pursue in isolation. I don't just want freedom, I want to help others to
> be free. I wouldn't be much of a freedom advocate if I just broke my own
> shackles then ran away. I consider it my moral obligation to help others
> to be free too. Part of that entails helping to provide and maintain the
> software, but simply providing software does not ensure its adoption, so
> I need to enlist the support of others, promote freedom, and defend that
> against any attacks which undermine my efforts. Poisoning Free Software,
> as Canonical are doing, is one such attack, and AFAIAC it's no different
> from any other attack against Free Software, such as Steve Jobs' threats
> against Theora, or Ballmer's unsubstantiated threats against Linux, then
> Microsoft's subsequent racketeering to extort protection money from HTC,
> for suspiciously anonymous "patent infringements". Canonical's behaviour
> is just as hostile towards Free Software, IMO, but worse because they're
> also hypocrites and traitors, leeching from /my/ voluntary contributions
> to promote the enemy's agenda, not the Free Software agenda that my (and
> countless others') contributions were intended to promote.
> Stallman made a similar observation about the Gnome Foundation, who were
> promoting Microsoft's proprietary technology in preference to GNU. Their
> reaction was shockingly hostile, ultimately resulting in their threat to
> withdraw from the GNU Foundation. The lure of Microsoft's toxic software
> was apparently more appealing than the principles of freedom, so perhaps
> it really would be better if they left, not only the GNU Foundation, but
> the entire Free Software community, and took their toxic technology with
> them, right along with other traitors like Canonical. At least then we'd
> have a clear distinction between those attacking Free Software and those
> defending it, so /real/ Free Software developers and their contributions
> wouldn't be hijacked to serve the enemy's agenda.
When you write "their" you refer to ~2 people, including a dildos merchant who
works for a proprietary software companies that pays for his seat in
GNOME (akin to lobbying).
GNOME needs to become more selective and true to its goals.
BTW, this dildos merchant from 'GNOME' started attacking the FSF yesterday
(again) for daring to point out Apple's GPL violations.
~~ Best of wishes
"If the operating system is in fact a natural monopoly, then what could be better than having
an operating system that nobody owns?"
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
19:20:01 up 28 days, 9:49, 1 user, load average: 0.78, 0.99, 1.16
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----