<html><body style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Hi team,<br><br>After put some thought on this, and considering the last discussion on the 'hiperbola/parabola' thread, I decide to leave the list.<br>There are other places where I can use my limited time to make a more meaningful contribution.<br><br>Before to leave, I would like to clarify some points that were wrongly pointed out by Quirilo, and point some misconceptions and wrong statements.<br><br>I got involved with FSFLA almost since its foundation, in some periods being more active than others.<br>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.<br><br>I never asked, mentioned, pointed or implied, directly or indirectly, to FSFLA to give up her values.<br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>Nevertheless, I pointed why some ideas are broken, confused or inaccurate, ideas you are promoting under the flag that they are 'resistance'.<br><br>For example, when I mentioned about outdated and insecure software/distributions, I was not talking about including non-free software.<br>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at the distros mentioned as free alternatives, several packages that are there (and hence are free software) are very outdated and contains security flaws that put their users in danger.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). <br><br>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 Non-free software is insecure by design, yes, so it is outdated free software with known vulnerabilities that are not fixed.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. <br>Using Debian as reference:<br>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. <br><br>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.<br><br>That said, I wish FSFLA success in her fight for software freedom. I will keep working towards this, but in different forums.<br><br>Thank you,<br><br>Eder 'Frolic' Marques<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br></body></html>