Re: Links that recommend running nonfree JS code.

[Lefty <lefty shugendo org>]

On Jan 10, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Magdalen Berns <m berns thismagpie com> wrote:

Perhaps some might be seeing Richard as the FSF too quickly and not giving due regard what he is actually saying about this in the reactions to what he's putting forward. How he's defined "dodgy links" really does not seem all that unreasonable or idealistic, because it takes into account the important point that some members of the community might be excluded unless they sacrifice their principles. I don't think it's necessary to agree with *all* the ethics of the FSF to concede that this is a fair concern for Richard to be putting forward for discussion.

It seems strange (at best) that anyone would see it as nonconstructive for us to actively seek to ensure we have a strong cooperative relationship with the FSF community, where this is possible. Given that we are branded as a free desktop software community, this seems like something we ought to be taking more seriously. 

It’s frankly pretty difficult for me at least to distinguish between Richard-speaking-as-Richard-alone and Richard-speaking-as-the-FSF, and he never makes the distinction himself. Does he hold some viewpoint that the FSF does not, or vice versa? That would actually be news to me.

Maybe he could clarify whether his nominating me as an “enemy of the free software movement” at Software Freedom Day in 2009 was his personal position or the FSF’s; I’d been assuming the latter, and as I say, he never makes a clear distinction himself.

As far as “taking things seriously”, it becomes a little difficult when we’re being asked to also take things like the necessity of recognizing the "original designers” — some of them, anyway — of the "GNU/Linux” system, or the notion that the best piece of software to do a given job is the “free-est” one as opposed to the “most usable” one “seriously” as well.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail