[FSFLA] Leaving the list - final clarifications

[Eder L. Marques]

Hi team,

After put some thought on this, and considering the last discussion on
the 'hiperbola/parabola' thread, I decide to leave the list.
There are other places where I can use my limited time to make a more
meaningful contribution.

Before to leave, I would like to clarify some points that were wrongly
pointed out by Quirilo, and point some misconceptions and wrong
statements.

I got involved with FSFLA almost since its foundation, in some periods
being more active than others.
During this time I saw the founders leave, I saw discussions,
flamewars, but I also saw hope and genuine interest from some members
(especially oliva, which I believe is the only from the original
founders that remains). I had the opportunity to see how FSFLA acts
(or doesn't act) in many situations over the last 10 years, and hence
I am not based this message only on the last thread.

I never asked, mentioned, pointed or implied, directly or indirectly,
to FSFLA to give up her values.
I tried to bring into attention that it is possible, when people are
willing to, to step back for a minute and check if there are options
or different pathways to achieve the same objectives, again without
giving up of principles and values.

I never tried, directly or indirectly,  to convince FSFLA to go
against her own reasoning. I never disqualified FSFLA values. You have
no right to point and say that, because it is a lie and your lack of
diplomacy, as you would like to say about yourself, does not make it
true or more acceptable.

Nevertheless, I pointed why some ideas are broken, confused or
inaccurate, ideas you are promoting under the flag that they are
'resistance'.

For example, when I mentioned about outdated and insecure
software/distributions, I was not talking about including non-free
software.
I was referring that, at the distros mentioned as free alternatives,
several packages that are there (and hence are free software) are very
outdated and contains security flaws that put their users in danger. I
was not referring to use non-free software, but to use _updated_ free
software (and again I am not talking about functionality). 

The reply provided was far away from the point, completely unrelated.
Non-free software is insecure by design, yes, so it is outdated  free
software with known vulnerabilities that are not fixed. Options? One
might be to use updated free software, and not to recommend free
software that is known to have security vulnerabilities and is not
proper maintained. I don't see how one might say that this means
rendition to corporations. Translating into actions, for this
particular example it represents to refer to some well maintained
distros, with an addendum section. 
Using Debian as reference:
IF you would like to use Debian, please do so adding only the 'main'
repository, where you will find only free software. Please consider
not to use the 'contrib' and 'non-free' sections, as the software
contained there does not respect your freedom. 

This is just an example and does not, IMHO, mean FSFLA endorse
non-free software, nor recommend them, nor 'to close the eyes' to
something against FSFLA's core values. If you perceives this as an
attack, then you have a problem. But people sometimes becomes blind,
in trying to sustain their principles and values, to really understand
the real implications of their actions or to even think about what
they are trying to say.

That said, I wish FSFLA success in her fight for software freedom. I
will keep working towards this, but in different forums.

Thank you,

Eder 'Frolic' Marques


-------------- Próxima Parte ----------
Um anexo em HTML foi limpo...
URL: <http://www.fsfla.org/pipermail/discusion/attachments/20170601/b7923885/attachment.html>