[FSFLA] Hiperbola: A fully free, stable, secure, simple, lightweight and long-term distribution

[Quiliro]

El Mon, 29 May 2017 16:05:07 -0400
"Eder L. Marques" <eder at edermarques.net> escribió:

> It was an interesting conversation for me to re-assess my  opinion
> about FSFLA.

I am glad your opinion about FSFLA still holds. That means that we have not surrendered to the forces of software corporations and cyberspace trusts!

> This will be my last msg in this thread.

I am sorry about that. I think that we could collaborate productively if you would accept us as we are and consider where you and we have common objectives instead of trying to convince us to go against our own reasoning.

> >> Why instead of a patch to remove a non-free software you don't
> offer a 
>  >> patch to replace this non-free software with an free-software 
>  >> equivalent? :)
> 
>  >Because the later is not easy. No one has the capacity to do it.
> That is not a reason to make the user subjugated by the developer of
> the non-free software which has no >replacement.
> 
> I believe that there is confusion, either intentionally or not, when
> addressing this topic (on this thread and in others).

There is no confusion. We have our values. A strong conviction with reasoned values is not to be misinterpreted as dogmatism or as closed mind or as foolish stubornness. Being firm about our values does not mean we cannot collaborate. It just means we have our own opinions.

> Giving the user options and the right information to make appropriate
> decisions is not subjugate the user to the developer.

Providing information is not subjugating the user. But promoting "options" that will harm the user will render us on the side of the subjugator. _That_ is subjugating the user to the developer (by our standards).

> But I believe that there is no willing to understand that. 

I accept your form of thought. Nevertheless, you seem not to accept mine. You call resisting conquest as "not willing to understand". If you want to build a link, please find items where we could work together instead of disqualifying our values.

> And the very same people that talks about freedom (from a 4 freedoms
> perspective) wants the user to not be free to make their choices, to
> be imprisoned, forced to use outdated and insecure software (I am not
> talking about functionalities, I am talking about security) under the
> misconception of protect their freedom (even if in ANY distro they can
> still install non-free sw, just having to do a few more steps).

Non-free software is insecure by design. It is intended to hide functionality that forbids the user from making the machine do her will. Non-free software updates are "secure" for the developer, not for the user. It might even protect the user against the small players. But it certainly allows attacks against the user by the big cartels. That is even worse than avoiding those "security" patches.

> I understood your point of view and I assume that it is also the
> overall FSFLA point of view.
> 
> After 16 years of the same discussion, I thought that FSFLA had evolve
> (without having to go against its values).
> I was wrong.

That would not be evolving. That would be giving up to the proposals of the corporations that control software and cyberspace. In fact it is going against our values to promote non-free software by vesting it as a valid option. It is not a valid option; as it is not a valid option to offer users something that hurts them making it look as an option.

> Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

If you wants to bring about real collaboration and camaradery, then propose actions that would not mean rendition but agreement. Please present proposals rather than defending your attacks against our values and our conviction to abide to them.

--
Saluton,
Quiliro
0987631031