Re: GNOME now

[Brian Cameron <brian cameron oracle com>]

RMS:

On 11/17/12 07:53 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>      >         Tools that use non-free technologies like Skype or
>      >       Vonage are not just popular, but a requirement for many people who pay
>      >       for such services.  How many average people would purchase a device
>      >       that did not support such tools?
>      >
>      >  Is this a real issue?  On a free operating system, developers can
>      >  implement whatever they wish.  And users can install it if they wish.
>
>      Most commercial products that work with video require non-free codecs.
>      While users may do what they wish, installing free software that
>      implements non-free codecs may be considered a crime in some places.
>
> This seems to be a disconnect of subject.  Before, you were talking
> about support for Skype.  The only company that might plausibly
> implement a program for Skype on GNU/Linux is Skype.
>
> So my response is about that.  If Skype wants to implement its
> snooping-enabled nofree software on GNU/Linux, it can do so, and users
> can install it if they wish.
>
> Like any nonfree software, this would be unethical, but I see no reason
> why it would be a crime.
>
> My point is that we must not do _anything_ that could be construed as
> recommending that nonfree software, and that includes "integrating"
> it.  Our duty, rather than integrating nonfree software, is to
> differentiate it -- not do anything that would grant it ethical
> legitimacy.

Good point.  I was really not trying to recommend any non-free software.
My examples were just meant to be currently popular examples.

Instead I was just trying to highlight that there seems to be a
disconnect between the GNOME project team's stated goals of reaching
the "average" computer user when so many average users believe they
need non-free products, such as tools that interact with and create
media.

> The same applies to DRM software, which I supposed would be
> implemented by the same companies that use the DRM, if at all.  This
> too would be proprietary software, and malicious too, so we must not
> do anything that would grant it ethical legitimacy.

I respect that those artists who create digital art should have
mechanisms to "own" their artwork or to control how it should be
consumed or presented.  However, DRM systems should minimally not
disallow the financially disadvantaged from participating in
digital culture.  Otherwise would be inhumane.

> Since some states which treat their citizens as enemies persecute
> such software, GNOME would not be directly involved with it.

Aside, perhaps, from helping to envision what a usable & accessible
desktop for the world's average financially disadvantaged user might
look like.  Considering that OLPC is a significant distributor of GNOME
already and that free software has obvious benefits in regions affected
by poverty.  I would encourage the GNOME product to focus more strongly
on this and other important humanitarian use cases.

Currently free software systems are unable to support popular
ubiquitous devices, like certain touch-screen features or a DVD movie
player.  It seems clear humanitarian concerns have not been considered
deeply here.  As multimedia and human interaction devices become more
sophisticated, this will likely become a more serious problem for the
desktop.  Perhaps it might be possible to help craft more sophisticated
law that better protects the ability of companies and artists to profit
from their creative work in a more humane manner.

To me, this seems like a topic worthy of discussion and action amongst
free software desktop developers.  Though, you may be talking about
something else when you say GNOME should not be directly involved.

Brian