Throwing insults only proves how low your intellectual level is. If you wish to flaunt your stupidity and closed-mindedness, be my guest.

Labeling someone who genuinely disagrees with your opinions and wishes to hold a proper debate on the issues as someone who’s opinions are illegitimate is an excellent example of denial. You simply don’t want to deal with opposing views, and thus shove them under the carpet.

Frankly, I forgot what this debate was about and don’t feel like reviving it. I might revisit it at a later point, but right now I have other stuff of greater interest and importance to deal with, and only a limited amount of energy.

“1. Action isn’t the same as inaction.”

I still have absolutely no idea what “action” you are referring to.

“2. Supporting an existing dependency isn’t the same as creating a new dependency.”

I never mentioned anything about “new” dependencies. I am complaining about the distribution of non-Free software, regardless of whether those who end up using it already think they have a dependency for it, especially as that same functionality can be provided using Free Software, either by primary or third-party distribution.

“3. Promoting something isn’t the same as not demoting it.”

By distributing Fluendo’s codecs Canonical is promoting their use over Free Software equivalents. What’s difficult to understand about that?

“4. This debate could have real-life consequences, and thus those consequences are relevant to this debate.”

You make it sound like your life depended on non-Free software. That’s hyperbole at best, and sheer hysteria at worst.

“5. Don’t get into hysterics when criticised.”

On the contrary, as ever I am perfectly calm. You OTOH are the one making hysterical claims of “useless freedom”; “lunatic”; “torture” and “forcing”. As for your “criticism”, I have yet to see any valid assertions from you whatsoever, critical or otherwise.

“Aside from that, I’m surprised that you think that free formats have no merit at all, not even the merit of being free, over non-free formats.”

Well that’s just a blatant lie, since I have made no such recommendations. My dissent is with Canonical distributing and promoting proprietary software, regardless of whether or not it is also patent encumbered, and I have further pointed out that users are still able to obtain that patent encumbered software elsewhere in the form of Free Software, but that is in no way an endorsement of patent encumbered software, it is merely a response to those who make excuses about “needing” to distribute proprietary software in Free Software distributions, when that clearly is not the case.

“I guess this is what’s called an inflamatory post, but I really don’t like being called names”

Well I don’t like being marginalised as a fringe fanatic by people who have contempt for the principles of Freedom.

“or being told that certain relevant stuff isn’t open for discussion.”

Another lie. Where exactly did I attempt to dictate to you what you may or may not discuss?

You OTOH have done nothing but infer that I have no right to discuss my objections, with your continuous references to my supposed “forcing”.

“You did have some fair points about distribution vs use (assuming you are correct about the law), so you might be right.”

I’m sure I am, but again, please confirm this with your lawyer.

I wrote: “Well while you’re waiting for Sun to complete their PDF Forms support, perhaps you could try this:”

You wrote: “Ineresting app, but not what I need. I can’t present this to my dad as a suitable replacement.”

Why?

I wrote: “You did actually install them, didn’t you? They should be installed (from that tarball) into /usr/lib/codecs/.”

You wrote “I tried that. It’s no good.”

Well that’s a bit vague. Define “no good”. The specific error message would be a good starting point.

I wrote: “Perhaps you could point me to one of these problematic RMVB files, so I can see for myself.”

You wrote: “I’d rather not.”

Well that’s just downright suspicious. And you wonder why I question your veracity.

I wrote: “Then use Gnash, like I do.”

You wrote “It implements Flash 7, partially implements Flash 8, and hardly at all implements Flash 9. Maybe it’s just prejudice, but I prefer a full implementation.”

That’s evasive. Does it or doesn’t it work? You might as well say that you prefer car “x” over car “y” because car “x” can do 200MPH, even though you’ll never have the opportunity to drive at 200MPH because it’s illegal.

IOW your perceived problem is fictitious, and your attitude is therefore bigoted.

“BTW, I’m complaining here because you are talking as if free software is perfect”

Rubbish, I already clearly stated that “I don’t mean there won’t be any [problems]“. This debate has nothing to do with technical issues, which exist in all software, Free or otherwise (Windows has more than it’s fair share too, or have you forgotten that?). I have made no such claim of technical “perfection”, that’s just more of your hyperbole.

However, you seem to be claiming that Free Software has insurmountable problems, the specific details of which you seem rather unwilling to share. I am merely refuting the supposedly insurmountable nature of those problems.

“and there is no need at all for non-free software.”

I have no need for it, certainly. You claim to do so, but then what you “want” and what you “need” are not necessarily the same thing.

But again, this is all beside the point. My complaint has nothing to do with the mere existence of proprietary software, it is to do with a Free Software vendor distributing such software by default.

As I’ve already indicated, if you really want proprietary software, then clearly your best option is Windows. Please feel free to use it, I won’t stop you.

“I simply dislike people only seeing one half of the cup.”

You seem to be rather confused about exactly what is being debated here. AFAIAC there are not two sides to this story. If you want to use proprietary software, then do so. If you want to use Free software, then do so. But what you are advocating is compromising Free Software with the inclusion of proprietary software, for no better reason than convenience, whilst ignoring the perfectly viable Free Software alternative. Compromising Freedom is not a two-sided story IMHO, unless one believes the morally reprehensible “side” is worthy of consideration.

I wrote: “This is just a rather long-winded way of saying that perhaps your involvement in Free Software would be better served by participating, rather than just leeching and complaining.”

You wrote: “So I give you real problems I experience, but since they aren’t you problems then they must be made up, right?”

More hyperbole and misrepresentation.

Firstly, my comment has nothing to do with insinuating that you lied, although given the extremely sparse information you’ve provided so far, I am inclined to believe you are (at the very least) exaggerating.

Secondly, my comment was a perfectly unambiguous suggestion that you should simply seek resolutions to your problems, rather than just complaining about them.

You seem rather too eager to give up without trying.

Of course, if it’s convenience you want, then by all means go and use Windows instead. However, I hear it has quite a few inconvenience issues itself, and unlike GNU/Linux, many of those problems are insurmountable, since you do not have access to the sources, which pretty much kills any hope you might have of fixing broken proprietary software (another issue you should bear in mind, when advocating for proprietary software in GNU/Linux).

I wrote: “So what are you going to do?”

You wrote: “Slowly wean myself off of non-free formats.”

You haven’t demonstrated much enthusiasm for that so far, so I’m inclined to think that you won’t, in the long term. I’m further inclined to think that others exposed to such formats by default will be equally apathetic, as people are naturally predisposed to be.

I wrote: “First, I am neither forcing nor removing anything, I am merely campaigning. I have no power to forcibly remove anything.”

You wrote: “You are campaining for it. I’m talking about what happens if you succeed. In other words, I’m talking about what happens if your ideas are realised.”

Then stop insinuating that I am “forcing” something. If change happens then it will be by consensus, not by the iron will and dictatorial powers you seem to think I posses.

Are you afraid that others might actually agree with my opinions? Is that why you’re so keen to censor me?

It’s called Freedom of speech, my friend. Deal with it.

I wrote: “Opinions can, by virtue of their subjectivity, neither be right nor wrong.”

You wrote: “When they are a matter of personal taste.”

Just like your previous claim about the Gimp’s interface.

“But an opinion that claims that 2+1 = 3 (in the decimal system) is correct.”

No, that is not an opinion, it is a preposition based upon a series of established axioms, which may be deemed to be correct by consensus derived through logical evidence, and thus established as fact. Thus it may be said that “1+1=2″ is a fact as concluded by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell in a 1000 page mathematical proof contained within their published work; Principia Mathematica, and by subsequent consensus and ratification by the scientific community.

“An opinion that claims that 2+1 = 1 (in the decimal system) is incorrect.”

No, that is not an opinion either, it is a fallacy which contradicts established fact.

Of course there is always the principle of existentialism, which maintains that there are no facts, or anything else, beyond that of individual perception. But unless you believe you live in a world of your own, at some point you have to accept that there are certain established facts.

Most of your assertions so far have been opinions, and those which might conceivably be facts are largely unsupported.

I wrote: “This is just another “market share” argument, that advocates compromising principles in order to spread their adoption. The former is unacceptable, and the latter is irrelevant.”

You wrote: “The latter will lead to the elimination of non-free software.”

An increased market share of non-Free software (Fluendo codecs) will hardly lead to the elimination of itself, now will it? That’s just common sense.

I wrote: “until I was confronted by a barrage of anti-Free-Software sentiment.”

You wrote: “This is a figment of your imagination. No one here is against free software.”

If you really believe that then you are obviously blind to your own bigotry. This entire discussion has comprised nothing but your criticism of Free Software.

I wrote: “By giving him more non-Free software for him to become dependant on?”

You wrote: “He is already dependent upon it.”

Speak for yourself. You presume to know an awful lot about what other people are dependant on. But providing such software will certainly not break that dependency, as you rather naively claim.

I wrote: “It stands a much better chance than you giving such a user the first-impression that non-Free software is so essential that it must be included in a Free Software distribution.”

You wrote: “But then you never gain an opening in which to speak about software freedom.”

What opening? Who exactly is going to be doing this “speaking” to Remix users, to persuade them to remove the non-Free software they’ve been provided with, and thus become dependant on.

Better by far to provide them with Free Software, and let each individual explore his own options from there. If they still end up seeking out non-Free software, then so be it, but encouraging that by actually shoving it down their throats is not exactly conducive to Free Software adoption, much less an exercise in upholding the principles of Free Software, is it?

I wrote: “Well it clearly isn’t the default in Remix, now is it?”

You wrote: “I have poorly expressed myself. I mean free formats being included by default and used for encoding by default.”

My original statement stands. The Fluendo codecs are neither Free nor unencumbered.

I wrote: “And what is going to motivate them to do that, if everyone (even GNU/Linux users) is using proprietary formats, just as Remix users are now likely to do, thanks to the Fluendo codecs?”

You wrote: “Free of charge”

The Fluendo codecs will be preinstalled and included in the price of the respective OEM’s Netbooks. End users will not be aware of the costs involved, will not pay directly for the commercial software, and will likely not have a choice in the matter.

“large installed base”

The largest codecs “installed base” is encumbered formats, and Remix will only exacerbate that problem.

“it’s the default encoding format”

You keep repeating that, but I see no evidence for it.

How do you draw that conclusion, given that the Fluendo codecs are both encumbered and non-Free, and installed by default?

Who is going to mandate which codecs Remix users utilise, to discourage them from using encumbered formats?

“and sometimes has superior quality.”

They’ll never have a chance to find that out, if they’re force-fed Fluendo’s codecs.

You said: “It’s more like me suggesting to treat with Methadone while you suggest the junky just drop the drugs and deal with the full-blown withdrawal symptoms.”

I said: “IOW as far as you’re concerned, using Free Software is akin to not using software at all.”

You said: “You are taking what I said out of context to create a provocative statement I never made.”

It’s right there (above). You clearly stated that my solution was akin to “full-blown withdrawal” … i.e. “nothing at all”. IOW you think that using Free Software in lieu of proprietary/encumbered software is just like not using software at all. It seemed like a clear enough condemnation to me. More bigotry.

I wrote: “It’s good to know that you have such a high opinion of Freedom. Perhaps you’d like to revoke the Bill of Rights too, since Freedom is so “useless”.”

You wrote: “I mean useless to those who need functionality it doesn’t provide.”

Regardless of to whom, or for what purpose, I find it utterly deplorable that you could consider Freedom to be “useless”. Yet more bigotry.

“And the choice is forced, not freedom.”

Again you make this ridiculous accusation that users are being “forced”. Changing the delivery method does not preclude delivery.

OTOH users receiving proprietary software on a Free Software distribution, without choice, is forcing them to accept something they may not want.

Users who do not receive such software, may still obtain it from elsewhere. They have choice. What choice does everyone else have? What choice do uninformed noobs have, when they receive a Free Software distribution that they don’t even know is tainted?

I wrote: “But again I refer you to the contradiction of achieving Freedom by giving it up”

You wrote: “There is no contradiction. It is gaining freedom inch by inch rather than all at once.”

But once again, you talk as though that Freedom were already lost. Maybe yours is, but mine isn’t. Such users are not “gaining freedom”, inch by inch or by any other means, they are simply losing the Freedom they already have, and for no better reason than because Canonical mandates that proprietary software belongs in Remix.

I wrote: “But Canonical are not making free formats or even Free Software the default for encoding. That’s the whole point.”

You wrote: “Where is the source for that?”

Good grief, I hope you’re kidding. That’s the whole point of this article. Proprietary and encumbered codecs will be distributed by OEMs by default in Remix. That software is commercial, proprietary and encumbered. Feel free to prove me wrong by providing the URL to the source code for the Fluendo codecs packages, and the GPL license contained therein.

I wrote: “Do you suppose that anyone would be using Windows Media today, if Microsoft had included support for popular competing formats in Windows Media Player? No, it is only because Microsoft practically ignored every other format out there that Windows Media has any kind of foothold at all.”

You wrote: “Fair point. However, wasn’t Windows already the dominant platform at that point?”

This isn’t about platforms, it’s about Media. The MP3 format predates Windows Media by several years, going back as far as 1979, and popularly implemented by 1993, some six years before the release of Windows Media V1. The same can be said about video codecs like MPEG1, which dates back to 1988, with a full implementation and release in 1992.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Audio#Development_history

The initial release of Windows XP only included a very restricted MP3 codec limited to very low bitrates. It wasn’t until the release of WMP10 in 2004 that an unrestricted encoder was provided, and even then not system-wide, but only for WMP10, some 5 years after the release of the Windows Media format. It requires a hack to make the codec available to other media encoders on the system:

http://forum.videohelp.com/topic238704.html

I wrote: “That has nothing to do with quality, that is merely your personal taste. I happen to prefer the Gimp’s interface to that of other image manipulation software.”

You wrote: “And when personal taste makes something annoying, that is a quality issue for the user who is annoyed.”

You have a very odd definition for “quality”. Your subjectively poor opinion of a design does not objectively make that design poor quality. That’s merely a poor opinion, not poor quality. If the object in question has some verifiable fault, then that may be said to be “poor quality”, but what you are describing is not a fault, it is merely your taste.

I wrote: “Again, that has nothing to do with “quality”. You are simply using the wrong tool for the job.”

You wrote: Interestingly enough, Evince is supposed to be able to edit PDF forms, and the release notes for 2.20 said that saving wasn’t implemented yet.

Nonetheless, Evince is a document viewer, not an editor. The fact that the author(s) have decided to incorporate editing features is merely a bonus, which you will presumably benefit from once it’s complete.

I wrote: “No, the first is merely an opinion (neither true nor false), and the second is your error in trying to use a document viewer to try to edit documents.”

You wrote: “It’s a matter of opinion whether a certain website is displayed properly”

You’re changing the subject in an attempt to manipulate the argument to apply to an unrelated topic. The “opinion” you expressed, and to which I was responding, was WRT the Gimp, not Web page rendering.

And even WRT Web pages, I think you’re grossly exaggerating the extent of the problem. Please point me to the problem Web page in question … one you actually use, as opposed to one you had to research to unearth the problem.

“or whether a multimedia file plays?”

Again, this is unrelated to the point I was responding to. However, the fact is that I cannot reproduce your issue with media playback here, so I must assume that the problem lies with Medibuntu, and not MPlayer.

“The ine you showed me is for editing PDF documents, and mentions nothing about forms.”

Your pedantry does not alter the fact that exactly the same result is achieved using that software.

I wrote: “reality is I am merely reiterating other’s doctrines that I happen to support.”

You wrote: “If you agree with it then it’s your opinion, right? Why then can’t you have a discussion with me as an individual?”

Are you suggesting that I should deny my beliefs in order to have a discussion with you?

The fact is that you have continuously attempted to discredit my opinions by marginalising me as a fringe fanatic, therefore it became necessary for me to remind you that I was not unique and had not manufactured my own doctrine.

You can’t have it both ways, either you think I’m purely anomalous and self-opinionated, or I am representative of this larger group that you purport I “hide behind”.

So which is it?

I wrote: “You on the other hand, are hiding behind a fictitious army of people who you claim cannot survive without non-Free software”

You wrote: “No. I’m arguing for the sake of myself, as well as any other people who maight share my needs.”

That’s a change of tack, since up to now you have claimed greater support for your ideologies than mine (“I’m glad your views aren’t prevalent”, “the majority who don’t care about the ideology and just want to get work done”) without any supporting evidence.

You’ll notice that the crux of my argument does not depend on numbers whatsoever, and indeed I have repeatedly stated that it is irrelevant. Freedom is a principle, Free Software is governed by a license, these things are immutable and wholly unrelated to popularity.

So my entire argument is an expression of principles, and my concern that those principles are not being implemented where they rightfully should.

In contrast, your argument has so far hinged on your unquantifiable presumption that the “majority” don’t care about such principles, and that this “majority” have higher priorities, but again, without any supporting evidence.

You’ve then used this unquantified and unsupported assertion to dismiss my opinions and suggestions as the ravings of a fringe lunatic, thus my assertion that you have attempted to marginalise me. The reality is that, short of your personal anecdotal evidence, you have absolutely nothing to support your assertions, and your continued attack on my integrity is nothing but the workings of a bigot.

“However, I do not draw authority to my claims merely from having other people support them.”

Well clearly you do, as I have just explained.

And if you mean to insinuate that I “draw” on such authority, well unlike you I am not making unsubstantiated claims about popular opinion, I am merely quoting verbatim from the GPL licence; the GPL FAQ; and the various philosophy documents at the FSF and GNU. Since I am not here to discuss my opinions of cheese, or the best breed of dog, I have no option but to “draw” on such authority, since the meaning of those documents is not in question, and I am not here to debate them, I am merely here to complain that those philosophies are not being implemented by Canonical.

“Numbers and names mean nothing to my arguments.”

That’s in total contradiction to everything you’ve just written.

I wrote: “Again, you show nothing but utter contempt for the written license of Free Software”

You wrote: “No. I’m pointing out that you expressed yourself here in an alienating fashion.”

Well if anyone feels alienated merely because I am concerned about people “violating the principles of Free Software”, then I’m sure such people are more than welcome to feel alienated, since I’d find it very difficult to sympathise with their position.

I wrote: “Your attempt to demonise Free Software and its advocates with references to religion is despicable.”

You wrote: “I’m not demonizing anything. You expressed your opinions badly, and I’m trying to help you so you don’t sound like a religious zealot next time.”

I see, so I’m a “religious zealot” now, am I? And you still don’t understand why I call you a bigot?

And please explain to me how expecting Free Software distributors to follow the Free Software doctrine is “zealotry”, exactly? Also please feel free to explain why you think me voicing my concerns over possible violations of this doctrine is “zealotry”, or for that matter how merely quoting the intent of the Free Software doctrine is “zealotry”; “hiding behind a group”; or “expressing [my]self badly”?

I wrote: “Right now I’d be happy enough just convincing you what an utter bigot you are.”

You wrote:

Here’s a shorter one:

[quote]
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
[/quote]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot

“Sounds to me more like a description of you.”

I have expressed my personal distaste for non-Free software, but I have not expressed an “intolerance” of it (in and of itself), nor for anything else. My concern is that Free and non-Free software is being combined, and then distributed, in such a way that would expose those who expect to receive Free Software to actually receive non-Free software. Complaining about a Free Software distribution not following the doctrine of Free Software is not “intolerance”, it is merely the expectation that Free Software distributions should practise what they preach, rather than behave hypocritically and expose their users to unwarranted obligations.

You OTOH have continually tried to marginalised me as a “zealot” and even described Freedom as “useless”, demonstrating the most extreme intolerance for the principles of Free Software, and indeed Freedom itself, that I have ever witnessed.

I have already stated that I do not care if people use non-Free software (e.g. Windows), but poisoning Free Software with non-Free software is an entirely different matter.

“‘Win’ means the elimination of IP.”

Again, you are not going to achieve that by distributing non-Free software.

So what you appear to be advocating is that the legal circumvention of unethical laws is, in and of itself, unethical, and that by so doing one is taking “action”; hence your assertion that this constitutes “civil disobedience”.

Nearly every part of that is complete bullshit.

First of all civil disobedience is defined as “the active refusal to obey certain laws”, and since no laws are being broken in this case, you have nothing to “disobey”. Again. please feel free to confirm this with your lawyer.

Secondly, if I disobey something unethical, I am acting wholly ethically doing so, since to not do so would in fact be unethical. The alternative would be like you claiming that to not break the law is illegal. Your cognitive dissonance is overwhelmingly illogical.

Thirdly, you seem to be implying that merely to disobey a “wish”, regardless of whether or not that wish is enforceable, is in some way an unethical act. That is a rather institutionalised attitude that I find alarmingly indoctrinated.

I wrote: “but also because your idea of “disobedience” is to poison Free Software in an act of protest.”

You wrote: “By using free-software implementations of patents? I thought that was your idea of civil disobedience.”

Since the only way to “disobey” the law in this matter is for Canonical to distribute unlicensed patent encumbered software from within the US, I assumed that this is what you meant.

I’ve already explained that I do not support civil disobedience in this matter, primarily because it is completely unnecessary.

I wrote: “Well maybe you have lost yours, but I certainly haven’t lost mine, and I don’t intend to do so any time soon”

You wrote: “So don’t use non-free software. But for those who already lost it, it would be great if they could regain some.”

You’re claiming that the citizens of the US have lost something that they haven’t, since downloading unlicensed patent encumbered Free Software form outside the US is not illegal, as I have already explained to you. Several times.

And I believe we’ve already covered the “look the other way” issue on compromising Free Software.

I wrote: “You think the only way to achieve Freedom is to buy it?”

You wrote: “No, you completely misunderstood. If you get fined over the use of free implementations of patents”

How can one be fined for breaking a law that doesn’t exist?

I wrote: “I’m not going to allow some American corporate gangsters to dictate to me what is, or is not, “legal” in my own country”

You wrote: “And I wasn’t suggesting that.”

But you’re quite happy to obey these fictitious laws, as indoctrinated by such gangsters, nonetheless.

It’s a complicated issue. Companies like Sun or AMD typically wake up when their business suffers. Microsoft, on the other hand, becomes more like SCO as its profits decline (they did in the last quarter).

Aside from that, I’m surprised that you think that free formats have no merit at all, not even the merit of being free, over non-free formats.

I guess this is what’s called an inflamatory post, but I really don’t like being called names, or being told that certain relevant stuff isn’t open for discussion. You did have some fair points about distribution vs use (assuming you are correct about the law), so you might be right.

In the end I couldn’t resist, so I will respond to specifics:

“You think advocating Freedom is “lunacy” now?”
No, but you occasionally express yourself in a way that might seem like that.

“Well while you’re waiting for Sun to complete their PDF Forms support, perhaps you could try this:”
Ineresting app, but not what I need. I can’t present this to my dad as a suitable replacement.

“You did actually install them, didn’t you? They should be installed (from that tarball) into /usr/lib/codecs/.”
I tried that. It’s no good.

“Perhaps you could point me to one of these problematic RMVB files, so I can see for myself.”
I’d rather not.

“Then use Gnash, like I do.”
It implements Flash 7, partially implements Flash 8, and hardly at all implements Flash 9. Maybe it’s just prejudice, but I prefer a full implementation.

“And by that I don’t mean that there won’t be any. Part of the whole ethos of Free Software is “participation”. You get, because others give. That’s the way it works. If nobody was to give, then it wouldn’t work. One of the things you can do to “give” is to provide bug reports if and when your Free Software doesn’t work, that way we can fix it so that it will work.

This is just a rather long-winded way of saying that perhaps your involvement in Free Software would be better served by participating, rather than just leeching and complaining.”
I do give occasionally, and I expect to give at ann accelerated rate as my CS studies progress. My main interest is in creating software.

BTW, I’m complaining here because you are talking as if free software is perfect and there is no need at all for non-free software. If you were dissing free software I’d be defending it. I simply dislike people only seeing one half of the cup.

“This is just a rather long-winded way of saying that perhaps your involvement in Free Software would be better served by participating, rather than just leeching and complaining.”
So I give you real problems I experience, but since they aren’t you problems then they must be made up, right?

“So what are you going to do?”
Slowly wean myself off of non-free formats.

“First, I am neither forcing nor removing anything, I am merely campaigning. I have no power to forcibly remove anything.”
You are campaining for it. I’m talking about what happens if you succeed. In other words, I’m talking about what happens if your ideas are realised.

“Well by continually claiming that I am trying to “force” other people to do things they (according to you) don’t want, you are clearly challenging my right to even speak on the subject. Please explain to me how debating is “forcing”, exactly?”
I’m talking about consequences.

“Opinions can, by virtue of their subjectivity, neither be right nor wrong.”
When they are a matter of personal taste. But an opinion that claims that 2+1 = 3 (in the decimal system) is correct. An opinion that claims that 2+1 = 1 (in the decimal system) is incorrect.

“This is just another “market share” argument, that advocates compromising principles in order to spread their adoption. The former is unacceptable, and the latter is irrelevant.”
The latter will lead to the elimination of non-free software.

“until I was confronted by a barrage of anti-Free-Software sentiment.”
This is a figment of your imagination. No one here is against free software.

“By giving him more non-Free software for him to become dependant on?”
He is already dependent upon it.

“It stands a much better chance than you giving such a user the first-impression that non-Free software is so essential that it must be included in a Free Software distribution.”
But then you never gain an opening in which to speak about software freedom.

“Well it clearly isn’t the default in Remix, now is it?”
I have poorly expressed myself. I mean free formats being included by default and used for encoding by default. This will lead to more and more content being provided in free formats until non-free formats become unneccessary.

“And what is going to motivate them to do that, if everyone (even GNU/Linux users) is using proprietary formats, just as Remix users are now likely to do, thanks to the Fluendo codecs?”
Free of charge, large installed base, it’s the default encoding format, and sometimes has superior quality.

“IOW as far as you’re concerned, using Free Software is akin to not using software at all.”
You are taking what I said out of context to create a provocative statement I never made.

“It’s good to know that you have such a high opinion of Freedom. Perhaps you’d like to revoke the Bill of Rights too, since Freedom is so “useless”.”
I mean useless to those who need functionality it doesn’t provide.

And the choice is forced, not freedom.

“But again I refer you to the contradiction of achieving Freedom by giving it up”
There is no contradiction. It is gaining freedom inch by inch rather than all at once.

“But Canonical are not making free formats or even Free Software the default for encoding. That’s the whole point.”
Where is the source for that?

“Do you suppose that anyone would be using Windows Media today, if Microsoft had included support for popular competing formats in Windows Media Player? No, it is only because Microsoft practically ignored every other format out there that Windows Media has any kind of foothold at all.”
Fair point. However, wasn’t Windows already the dominant platform at that point?

“That has nothing to do with quality, that is merely your personal taste. I happen to prefer the Gimp’s interface to that of other image manipulation software.”
And when personal taste makes something annoying, that is a quality issue for the user who is annoyed.

“Again, that has nothing to do with “quality”. You are simply using the wrong tool for the job.”
Interestingly enough, Evince is supposed to be able to edit PDF forms, and the release notes for 2.20 said that saving wasn’t implemented yet.

“No, the first is merely an opinion (neither true nor false), and the second is your error in trying to use a document viewer to try to edit documents.”
It’s a matter of opinion whether a certain website is displayed properly, or whether a multimedia file plays? It’s an error to use a program the way it’s intended? It is a document viewer, but why would they add support for editing PDF forms if not in order to edit PDF forms? And what other free program is there that can edit PDF forms? The ine you showed me is for editing PDF documents, and mentions nothing about forms.

“reality is I am merely reiterating other’s doctrines that I happen to support.”
If you agree with it then it’s your opinion, right? Why then can’t you have a discussion with me as an individual?

“You on the other hand, are hiding behind a fictitious army of people who you claim cannot survive without non-Free software”
No. I’m arguing for the sake of myself, as well as any other people who maight share my needs. However, I do not draw authority to my claims merely from having other people support them. Numbers and names mean nothing to my arguments.

“Again, you show nothing but utter contempt for the written license of Free Software”
No. I’m pointing out that you expressed yourself here in an alienating fashion.

“Your attempt to demonise Free Software and its advocates with references to religion is despicable.”
I’m not demonizing anything. You expressed your opinions badly, and I’m trying to help you so you don’t sound like a religious zealot next time.

“Right now I’d be happy enough just convincing you what an utter bigot you are.”

“Bigot

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or
opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable
or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is
intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in
politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to
his own church, party, belief, or opinion.”
– From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

Sounds to me more like a description of you.

“Where “win” presumably means “market share” again, I suppose. Yes, I’m well aware that you have more interest in popularity than your own (and others’) Freedom.”
‘Win’ means the elimination of IP.

“You’re still not making any sense. What has “action” got to do with anything. Legal circumvention of unethical laws? Is that the “action” you are referring to?”
Examples:
If The government ordered you to kill someone undeserving of death, it will be requiring you to perform an immoral action. This is an action which is forbidden.
If the government forbade crossing the street at a red light, it would be forbidding the performance of a morally neutral action. This is an inaction which is allowed.

Forbidding the use of patented ideas without a lisence is forbidding the performance of that which is allowed. You don’t have a moral obligation to use patented ideas, and you don’t have a moral obligation to avoid using patented ideas. You can do what you want. However, the government steps in and forbids the use of patented ideas without a license. Do you now have to violate this prohibition, comply with it, or may you ignore it?

I hope this helps you see the difference between action and inaction.

As to changing the law, that is a totally seperate issue from obaying existing laws.

“but also because your idea of “disobedience” is to poison Free Software in an act of protest.”
By using free-software implementations of patents? I thought that was your idea of civil disobedience.

“Well maybe you have lost yours, but I certainly haven’t lost mine, and I don’t intend to do so any time soon”
So don’t use non-free software. But for those who already lost it, it would be great if they could regain some.

“You think the only way to achieve Freedom is to buy it?”
No, you completely misunderstood. If you get fined over the use of free implementations of patents (I have to say this, otherwise I can’t respond at all to this mistake of yours) you lose money.

“I’m not going to allow some American corporate gangsters to dictate to me what is, or is not, “legal” in my own country”
And I wasn’t suggesting that.

[quote]
“You attempt to trivialise the issue with hyperbole (”torture”),”

You’re the one who compared it to the slavery of Americans by Americans. I think that’s over-reacting.
[/quote]

No I don’t think it is at all.

The corporate-backed political attacks against civil liberties in America (and elsewhere) are one of the biggest threats to Freedom in the modern history of democracy, since your Freedom is being attacked in ways that transcend well beyond whips and chains. The Intellectual Monopolists attacks on the Freedom of ideas is just one part of that agenda.

I used slavery as a very appropriate analogy for that development, and you countered with a blasé and sarcastic reference to “torture”. Either you completely fail to grasp the severity of the problem, or you simply don’t care. I suggest you research this, before you find it too late to save your own Freedom:

http://antitrust.slated.org/censorship/acta-proposal-2007.pdf

This is not some hysterical paranoia about a remotely possible dystopian future. Our Freedom is being destroyed right now … today. Are you going to fight it, or pretend it’s not happening?

[quote]
What are you going to do, preach to them like some seemingly lunatic pastor?
[/quote]

You think advocating Freedom is “lunacy” now?

[quote]
Some stuff, like saving PDF forms, doesn’t yet have a free software implementation.
[/quote]

Well while you’re waiting for Sun to complete their PDF Forms support, perhaps you could try this:

http://www.ecademix.com/JohannesHofmann/flpsed.html

[quote]
I also tried MPlayer, and it couldn’t play my rmvb files, even though it appears to be from the Medibuntu repository. From the link you gave me, it appears the latest version of rmvb that is supported is 9, while the current version is 11.
[quote]

I have no idea what codecs Medibuntu ships, but they obviously don’t provide the right ones, since I have no difficulty playing RMVB files using the codecs supplied here:

http://www1.mplayerhq.hu/MPlayer/releases/codecs/rp9codecs-win32-20050115.tar.bz2

You did actually install them, didn’t you? They should be installed (from that tarball) into /usr/lib/codecs/.

WRT the codec versions, RealMedia formats have not changed significantly enough since RP9 to make them incompatible with older releases (of either Real Player or MPlayer). AFAICT the only really new (codec) feature of Real Player 11 is support for H264 AVC, which you get with MPlayer anyway using native support.

Perhaps you could point me to one of these problematic RMVB files, so I can see for myself.

[quote]
In regards to Flash, I wasn’t talking about Flash Video, but about all things Flash, such as interactive Flash content embedded in web pages.
[/quote]

Then use Gnash, like I do.

Again, if you have a problem using this Free Software, then please point me to the source of your problem.

And by that I don’t mean that there won’t be any. Part of the whole ethos of Free Software is “participation”. You get, because others give. That’s the way it works. If nobody was to give, then it wouldn’t work. One of the things you can do to “give” is to provide bug reports if and when your Free Software doesn’t work, that way we can fix it so that it will work.

This is just a rather long-winded way of saying that perhaps your involvement in Free Software would be better served by participating, rather than just leeching and complaining.

[quote]
I didn’t even mention that there are some really bad websites, namely bank sites, that can only be properly accessed with IE.
[/quote]

Given the popularity of Firefox, and the litany of security issues with IE, I would hope that most banks would have moved away from proprietary IE standards by now. Certainly mine has. If yours hasn’t, then I suggest you write to them and complain. You might also wish to draw the following article to their attention:

“Indeed, some banks have even been looking into Linux Live CDs for their customers to use.”

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/18411/1143/

I really don’t know why you seem to be getting apparently inundated by all these proprietary formats. I cannot personally even remember ever seeing a RMVB file before (I had to hunt the Internet just now to find one), and the last time I had problems with IE specific Websites was some time last century. As for PDF forms, I’ve never even seen one, but it seems like a rather archaic method of completing some kind of application form. Surely it would be easier to just provide a secure Web form. If your father has absolutely no choice but to accept these proprietary forms, then maybe he should just print them out; fill them in; then FAX them back (or scan and Email them).

Personally, I think you’re just reaching.

It is part of the proprietary software agenda to produce proprietary formats that are deliberately incompatible with their competitors’ software (and hence ours too, until such time as we reverse engineer them). In addition to this, certain proprietary software vendors are now abusing patents for the same purpose (which we circumvent by hosting our software outside the jurisdiction of software patents). Barring antitrust rulings, this will likely always be the case.

So what are you going to do?

Are you going to run back to Windows every time some proprietary software vendor arbitrarily comes up with a new way to lock customers into their software? Is it absolutely essential that you support every single format in the world?

Of course if you were really committed to supporting Open Standards, Open Formats and Free Software, then you wouldn’t have that problem. I know I don’t.

You wrote: “Why should these people be forced against their will to take part in your civil disobedience?”

I wrote: “That is the most incredible misrepresentation of what I am campaigning for, that it is quite sickening.”

You wrote: “By removing the option to not participate in civil disobedience, you leave only one option, which is to partake in it.”

This conclusion wrong on every level.

First, I am neither forcing nor removing anything, I am merely campaigning. I have no power to forcibly remove anything.

Secondly, what I am campaigning for is wholly ethical. The way you present it makes it sound like I was snatching handbags from little old ladies.

Then there is this nonsense to do with “civil disobedience”, which is your contention – not mine. AFAIAC I am not “disobeying” anything, since these American laws simply do not apply to me. And as for American citizens, they are not (despite your cynicism) “disobeying” any law either, since merely using “unlicensed” patent encumbered Free Software is not a crime (again, feel free to confirm this with your lawyer). It is the distribution of unlicensed patent encumbered Free Software, from within the US, that is in violation of Draconian US laws on software patents … that is all.

But if you can find any laws that are actually relevant to you, then please feel free to go and break them, if that is what you want to do. I won’t try to stop you.

Again, please feel free to confirm this with your lawyer.

[quote]
And I’m not trying to shut you up.
[/quote]

Well by continually claiming that I am trying to “force” other people to do things they (according to you) don’t want, you are clearly challenging my right to even speak on the subject. Please explain to me how debating is “forcing”, exactly?

[quote]
BTW, I think REdistribution should have no restrictions over it,
[/quote]

Yes, I think I’m well aware of your opinions by now.

[quote]
all I care about is whether an opinion is correct, incorrect, and which is more correct or incorrect than the other.
[/quote]

Opinions can, by virtue of their subjectivity, neither be right nor wrong.

[quote]
If we ignore proprietary tie-ins, we fail to maximize the spread of software freedom.
[/quote]

This is just another “market share” argument, that advocates compromising principles in order to spread their adoption. The former is unacceptable, and the latter is irrelevant.

[quote]
If we weren’t involved, this non-free software would be used anyway.
[/quote]

My specific involvement here is to complain about the default distribution of non-Free software in an otherwise Free Software distribution. In that sense, I am not here to promote anything. Or at least I hadn’t anticipated doing so, until I was confronted by a barrage of anti-Free-Software sentiment.

[quote]
The user already has a dependency, we are trying to wean him off of that to free software.
[/quote]

By giving him more non-Free software for him to become dependant on?

I wrote: “What kind of message does that send to this user: “It’s really OK to taint Free Software for your personal convenience”?”

You wrote: “The user doesn’t even think in those terms, and your approach will never give him the chance.”

It stands a much better chance than you giving such a user the first-impression that non-Free software is so essential that it must be included in a Free Software distribution.

I wrote: “So what exactly are you hoping will motivate this user to then drop that dependence, after you’ve already told him there’s no problem with it?”

You wrote: “Freedom being the default”

Well it clearly isn’t the default in Remix, now is it?

[quote]
plus content providers (of all types) providing their content in free formats
[/quote]

And what is going to motivate them to do that, if everyone (even GNU/Linux users) is using proprietary formats, just as Remix users are now likely to do, thanks to the Fluendo codecs?

[quote]
for free will quickly make non-free software obsolete.
[/quote]

My main concern is that this insistence, by some in the community, on continuing to pro-actively support proprietary formats will quickly make Free Software obsolete, especially once the legal reach of the Intellectual Monopolists extends beyond the boundaries of America (Ref: the secret ACTA proposal), and more and more Free Software vendors are forced to make pacts with corporations like Microsoft.

[quote]
It’s more like me suggesting to treat with Methadone while you suggest the junky just drop the drugs and deal with the full-blown withdrawal symptoms.
[/quote]

IOW as far as you’re concerned, using Free Software is akin to not using software at all.

It’s reassuring to see you have such confidence in the software platform that you “advocate” for.

You wrote: “Actually, it’s customized for countries that respect patents, and customized for countries that don’t.”

I wrote: “I’d appreciate a link to a formal statement on this issue.”

You wrote: “What I wrote on this issue is based on reason”

So there is no formal statement from Canonical, or any OEM, confirming your supposition that Remix will be customised per region?

IOW it is indeed quite likely that even those not governed by America’s ridiculous software patent laws, will nonetheless be presented with “officially licensed” proprietary codecs, even if there is no legal reason to do so, thus not only vindicating those Intellectual Monopolists unethical claims, but even spreading the disease of their indoctrination outside the boundaries of the US.

[quote]
There is no reason I should back up my reasoning using absolute proof while you don’t see a need to do that yourself.
[/quote]

I wasn’t demanding proof, I was asking you to clarify if that was an official position at Canonical, or merely your opinion.

[quote]
Incidentally, no official statements were issued by any party involved that are relevant to this issue.
[/quote]

Thank you.

I wrote: “As I’ve said before, those users can still obtain Free Software implementations of encumbered software elsewhere.”

Youe wrote: “And as I’ve said before this isn’t good enough. It leads to a situation where it’s a choice between my way or the highway.”

Again, this is a very twisted view of things. These users still have exactly the same choices as before, but Free Software is not tainted in order for them to have those choices. And again, you present this as though what I am proposing is the ravings of an unethical dictator. I consider being “forced” to accept proprietary software far more dictatorial and unethical. Most of the noobs who will be victims of this injustice will not even be aware of the issue, and thus completely unable to make an informed choice … not that they currently have a choice anyway, thanks to this decision.

[quote]
The user is forced to choose between absolute slavery and useless freedom
[/quote]

It’s good to know that you have such a high opinion of Freedom. Perhaps you’d like to revoke the Bill of Rights too, since Freedom is so “useless”.

I find it amazing that anyone could even think in terms of Freedom being an imposition, much less see the word “forced” associated with it.

[quote]
without the option of minimal evil which is often necessary.
[/quote]

Yes, you’ve demonstrated quite admirably that you find evil necessary. I don’t.

[quote]
I’m not talking about popularity as the goal, but as a means to achieving a goal.
[/quote]

But again I refer you to the contradiction of achieving Freedom by giving it up. Are you so naive as to think that capitulating to the demands of an exploiter will somehow edge you closer to Freedom?

I wrote: “Again, unlikely given those users new dependence on encumbered formats, thanks to their default inclusion in the distro.”

You wrote: “The users are already dependent. Making free formats the default for encoding”

But Canonical are not making free formats or even Free Software the default for encoding. That’s the whole point.

[quote]
ignoring this dependence will not eliminate it.
[/quote]

It’ll eliminate it a lot faster than if we promote it, as Canonical are currently doing.

Do you suppose that anyone would be using Windows Media today, if Microsoft had included support for popular competing formats in Windows Media Player? No, it is only because Microsoft practically ignored every other format out there that Windows Media has any kind of foothold at all.

It is my contention that the Free Software community should take exactly the same approach with Ogg Vorbis and Theora.

However, that is all quite beside the point. Free Software distributors should not be promoting and distributing non-Free software. Period. And for as long as America maintains its insane software patent laws, end-users should simply acquire their patent encumbered Free Software elsewhere.

I wrote: “Exactly what “quality” issues are you having with Free Software?”

You wrote: “Annoying interface for The GIMP”

That has nothing to do with quality, that is merely your personal taste. I happen to prefer the Gimp’s interface to that of other image manipulation software.

[quote]
Evince can’t save PDF forms, although it’s the only one that seems able to edit them.
[/quote]

Again, that has nothing to do with “quality”. You are simply using the wrong tool for the job.

[quote]
both are true.
[/quote]

No, the first is merely an opinion (neither true nor false), and the second is your error in trying to use a document viewer to try to edit documents.

I wrote: “I came to that “conclusion” because the creator of the GPL came to that “conclusion”:”

You wrote: “My discussion is with you, not the entire community of free software activists or the author of the GPL.”

But you are more than happy to try to marginalise me as a fringe fanatic, where I am creating my own “loony” doctrine, whereas the reality is I am merely reiterating other’s doctrines that I happen to support.

[quote]
Similarly, I don’t try to hide behind a group
[/quote]

I’m not hiding. I’m right here expressing my support for the ideologies of Free Software.

You on the other hand, are hiding behind a fictitious army of people who you claim cannot survive without non-Free software, yet you can barely even give any supporting evidence of your own absolute dependence on such software, and what little evidence you have presented is shallow at best.

I wrote: “By tainting Free Software with non-Free software one is violating the principles of that Free Software. That is not an “opinion”, it is a statement of fact as documented in the license for that Free Software. So unless you somehow think that violating the principles of Free Software is in some way a perfectly “moral” undertaking, then I don’t see how you can dismiss my conclusions so easily.”

You wrote: “Talk like that scares me, because you sound as if you think the GPL is the divine word of God handed down to us mortal by the prophet RMS.”

Again, you show nothing but utter contempt for the written license of Free Software. Do you describe the Windows EULA as “the divine word of God” too? Would you consider violating that license simply because you had contempt for it?

This is not a chapter from the bible … it is a licence that ensures Freedom for software developers and users, chosen by those who, unlike you, believe in and respect those principles.

Your attempt to demonise Free Software and its advocates with references to religion is despicable.

[quote]
Just a word of advice: sound more rational if you wish to convince the uninitiated.
[/quote]

Right now I’d be happy enough just convincing you what an utter bigot you are.

[quote]
I don’t think it’s fundamentally wrong if it allows us to win.
[/quote]

Where “win” presumably means “market share” again, I suppose. Yes, I’m well aware that you have more interest in popularity than your own (and others’) Freedom.

[quote]
Market share will be a huge help in eliminating non-free software.
[/quote]

Not if that Free Software continues to spread the disease of non-Free software, by distribution and promotion.

[quote]
I don’t know your credentials
[/quote]

Do I need “credentials” in order to state the obvious?

But no, I do not expect you to take legal advice from me (if you think you really need it). I’ve said several times now that you should consult a lawyer, please do so and put this FUD to rest once and for all.

[quote]
You fail to grasp the difference between action and lack thereof.
[/quote]

You’re still not making any sense. What has “action” got to do with anything. Legal circumvention of unethical laws? Is that the “action” you are referring to?

[quote]
You completely misunderstood this. It’s an argument in favor of civil disobedience.
[/quote]

No, you completely misunderstood me, since I am not in favour of civil disobedience, mainly because there is nothing to disobey in the first place, since the solution is perfectly legal, but also because your idea of “disobedience” is to poison Free Software in an act of protest. I can think of less destructive ways of “protesting”.

I wrote: “What worse punishment is there than losing one’s liberty?”

You worte: “When it’s already lost”

Well maybe you have lost yours, but I certainly haven’t lost mine, and I don’t intend to do so any time soon.

[quote]
and you might not only not regain it but also lose what little leverage you have in this world, and that’s money.
[/quote]

You think the only way to achieve Freedom is to buy it? If you honestly believe that then you truly are a lost cause.

[quote]
this would at least allow legal use of free software
[/quote]

I’m not going to allow some American corporate gangsters to dictate to me what is, or is not, “legal” in my own country. And WRT to what you mistakenly think is illegal in your country, again I refer you to your lawyer.

I wrote: “Whatever happened to your “civil disobedience”?”

You wrote: “I told you I’m somewhat uncertain.”

I was being sarcastic.

You’re very welcome. We both live in the UK (no, I’ve never met him) and the Linux/FOSS community where I live is in good shape. In fact, the first GNU/Linux distribution was created here (MCC).

One last request, I am interested in what countries you come from, and how often you meet people (in your country) using GNU/Linux (among your friends, relatives, colleagues etc.) professionally or privately?

Regarding Stallman, I prefer not to burn this bridge by spending his time discussion something to which an answer is already out there.

Ref: Recommended distro

I don’t recommend any distro, since they all have ethical issues of one kind or another, (e.g. even gNewSense contains Mono). Now these issues are not (all) contradictions of Freedom, but some are nonetheless implementations that I personally disagree with for political or strategic reasons (mainly the avoidance of any Microsoft technology).

One should be able to tailor any given distro to one’s personal needs (either technical or political), so recommendations are rather moot.

I personally use Fedora, since I have worked with Red Hat systems all my life, so I am more comfortable with them, but I remove offending packages like Mono and all its dependants, and various other Microsoft technology like CIFS/Samba, so I end up with a “clean” system. AFAIK I would (sadly) have to do the same with pretty much any distro to accomplish the same result, so precisely which distro I start out with is mostly irrelevant from that perspective.

Naturally I would prefer if all distros followed the same ideology, whilst offloading offending packages to third-party repos (or just depreciating them altogether), but until that happens I have to make do with my own methods.

I am currently working on my own “clean” fork of Fedora, utilising such projects as GNU IceCat; Debian’s Icedove and
Linux-Libre.

“According to this quote ,you also do unethical thing by suggesting installation of the non-free codecs (I don’t have problem with it, Stallman does).”

You need to understand the difference between proprietary software and Free Software implementations of patent encumbered technology.

MPlayer is not non-Free, it is licensed under the GPL. The fact that the Intellectual Monopolists make unethical claims against that technology (only binding in the US) is completely irrelevant to the GPL. It is still Free Software.

Fluendo’s codec package is an entirely different thing, since it is not only patent encumbered, but also proprietary software, thus non-Free.

So I am in no way suggesting (or recommending that others suggest) non-Free software, since MPlayer is Free.

However, I would tend to also promote patent-free formats over patent encumbered formats, but that is a side issue (a matter of protest against software patents) rather than a matter of Free Software advocacy.

He likes gNewSense. I presume that is his vision of how Debian should really be like. I need comment from all of the Free Software supporters here, if they used it (or better USE IT) and do they see it as EXCELENT alternative for Ubuntu Netbook Remix (presuming it will be preinstalled on the laptops that Ubuntu Netbook Remix targets) ?

Quote from Stallman:
“Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I
think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others. Therefore,
if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of) some non-free program, I do not recommend it. The systems I recommend are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
non-free software.”

According to this quote ,you also do unethical thing by suggesting installation of the non-free codecs (I don’t have problem with it, Stallman does).

Debian distribution, and most of it’s derivatives (like Ubuntu) is unethical according to Stallman, because they offer repositories of packages that contain non-free software.

Because I can see you are a strong supporter of the Free Software movement, I would suggest you to try this simple test.

Write an email to Stallman. In the email tell him that you are strong supporter of the Free Software movement. Write him about GNU/Linux distribution you use (from you mentionig Livna’s repository, I presume you use Fedora), give him a list of packages you have installed on your PC and ask him:

“Am I following to the last words your ideas?”

Please share with us the answer you get from him.

Roy Schestowitz you can do the same test for us too.

“You attempt to trivialise the issue with hyperbole (”torture”),”
You’re the one who compared it to the slavery of Americans by Americans. I think that’s over-reacting.

“whilst ignoring the threat to your own liberty”
There is a growing threat, but it’s not like we’re low on chips and have to go all in just yet. In fact, even while being as conservative as we are now, we are slowly closing the gap. Look at the EU anti-trust, or FF popularity, or HTML5, or many other advances. We win some, lose some, and win a little more than we lose.

“You are obviously too young to understand the implications of intellectual totalitarianism.”
I’m sorry I haven’t made this clear, but I’m talking about the current situation, not the bleak future which could turn out very bad.

“Not good enough I’m afraid. Telling people to “look the other way” does not mean a violation is not being committed.”
A violation means getting people who were using 99% non-free software to use 99% free-software? I’d say it’s making improvements, not violating something.

“You seem to forget that there are actual Free Software developers out there,”
They chose the license, and if the license allows this specific use, we must assume they are OK with it.

“since they have no choice but to acknowledge that their Free Software is on that tainted distro.”
It’s a one-sided thing: I create software, you use it anyway you want within the specified limits. You are arguing here based on your wishes for the future, saying that possible future license terms should be respected as part of licenses that don’t include them.

“Then they should.”
That’s right, but they don’t. What are you going to do, preach to them like some seemingly lunatic pastor? You must find a way that actually works, you know.

“Oh dear. At last we come to the naked truth of the matter. I have seen this vile expression many; many times before, but rarely in the Free Software community. It is blatantly obvious that you have the mentality of a Windows Troll, with nothing but contempt for the Fee Software that you benefit from.”
Again baseless accusations against me. Some stuff, like saving PDF forms, doesn’t yet have a free software implementation. I also tried MPlayer, and it couldn’t play my rmvb files, even though it appears to be from the Medibuntu repository. From the link you gave me, it appears the latest version of rmvb that is supported is 9, while the current version is 11. In regards to Flash, I wasn’t talking about Flash Video, but about all things Flash, such as interactive Flash content embedded in web pages. I didn’t even mention that there are some really bad websites, namely bank sites, that can only be properly accessed with IE. All I’m saying is from personal experience, being the closest thing to the system administrator we have in this house.

“That is the most incredible misrepresentation of what I am campaigning for, that it is quite sickening.”
By removing the option to not participate in civil disobedience, you leave only one option, which is to partake in it.

“I have a right to Free Speech”
And I’m not trying to shut you up. I’m trying to have a debate on whether or not OEMs should be allowed to ship non-free software preinstalled on almost entirely free systems.

BTW, I think REdistribution should have no restrictions over it, but that which can’t in practical terms be redistributed doesn’t matter. This means that I think systems can be preinstalled with non-free software, but that the installation disc that comes with them shouldn’t include non-free software.

“or is that yet another Freedom you wish to denounce as “extremism”?”
I actually hate the term “extremist”, since it doesn’t help for anything at all except delegitimizing an opponent’s opinion. I don’t even think such a thing as an “extreme” opinion can even exist. Instead, all I care about is whether an opinion is correct, incorrect, and which is more correct or incorrect than the other.

“Or so you claim, and yet you fail to give any specific examples.”
I gave you 3 examples, and added one now. Again, I only mention stuff I’ve seen for myself (or at least I try. No one’s perfect).

“Since when is it our “duty” to promote and advocate non-Free software.”
To the contrary. People are now mostly tied in to non-free software, and thus run systems in which the vast majority of software is non-free. A gradual switch would allow systems that are almost entirely free in the short term, and completely free in the long term. If we ignore proprietary tie-ins, we fail to maximize the spread of software freedom. Besides, this isn’t promotion but rather the lack of demotion. If we weren’t involved, this non-free software would be used anyway.

“Assuming that “user” has not now developed a dependency on the non-Free software you gave him.”
The user already has a dependency, we are trying to wean him off of that to free software.

“What kind of message does that send to this user: “It’s really OK to taint Free Software for your personal convenience”?”
The user doesn’t even think in those terms, and your approach will never give him the chance.

“So what exactly are you hoping will motivate this user to then drop that dependence, after you’ve already told him there’s no problem with it?”
Freedom being the default, plus content providers (of all types) providing their content in free formats for free will quickly make non-free software obsolete.

“Do you advocate supporting a junkie’s addiction by continuing to supply him with heroin, when methadone is available on a free prescription?”
Incidentally, methadone is a variation of Heroin. It’s more like me suggesting to treat with Methadone while you suggest the junky just drop the drugs and deal with the full-blown withdrawal symptoms.

“I’d appreciate a link to a formal statement on this issue.”
What I wrote on this issue is based on reason, just like all you wrote on this issue is based on reason. There is no reason I should back up my reasoning using absolute proof while you don’t see a need to do that yourself. Incidentally, no official statements were issued by any party involved that are relevant to this issue.

“As I’ve said before, those users can still obtain Free Software implementations of encumbered software elsewhere.”
And as I’ve said before this isn’t good enough. It leads to a situation where it’s a choice between my way or the highway. The user is forced to choose between absolute slavery and useless freedom, without the option of minimal evil which is often necessary.

“This is just another meaningless “market share” argument. Freedom is not a popularity contest, remember?”
If you want freedom to be the standard, popularity can certainly be a big help. I’m not talking about popularity as the goal, but as a means to achieving a goal.

“Again, unlikely given those users new dependence on encumbered formats, thanks to their default inclusion in the distro.”
The users are already dependent. Making free formats the default for encoding, as well as their null cost and often higher quality will ensure that those who use free systems will produce content in free formats. Non-free formats are there as legacy support and training wheels, not as the default and the ideal. And again, users are already dependent on non-free formats, and ignoring this dependence will not eliminate it.

“I see, so first the excuse was compatibility (which I have debunked), and now the excuse is “quality”. Can you be more specific? Exactly what “quality” issues are you having with Free Software?”
Then let me make it clearer:
Just because the software is free doesn’t necessarily mean it’s quality is better. It could be better, it could be worse. As for examples from purely personal experience:
Annoying interface for The GIMP: It has loads of unnecessary pop-ups and lacks a bounding box. In addition, It uses multiple windows that can’t be docked to the side of the main windows (by which I mean the window in which the picture is edited).
Evince can’t save PDF forms, although it’s the only one that seems able to edit them.

And these aren’t excuses, they are reasons. Nor am I changing them, rather I am stating both at once because both are true.

“Well you already did by using platitudes like “Windows is a drag”. That statement fails to address the severity of the issue by quite a margin, essentially sweeping those issues under the carpet.”
Since it’s already quite obviouse that we both value our freedom and that Windows is not free, I simply avoided stating what we both already know. Rather, I opted to voice my opinion over the quality of Windows in comparison to that of Ubuntu.

“I came to that “conclusion” because the creator of the GPL came to that “conclusion”:”
My discussion is with you, not the entire community of free software activists or the author of the GPL. Similarly, I don’t try to hide behind a group but rather voice my opinions as those of a particular individual: me.

“By tainting Free Software with non-Free software one is violating the principles of that Free Software. That is not an “opinion”, it is a statement of fact as documented in the license for that Free Software. So unless you somehow think that violating the principles of Free Software is in some way a perfectly “moral” undertaking, then I don’t see how you can dismiss my conclusions so easily.”
Talk like that scares me, because you sound as if you think the GPL is the divine word of God handed down to us mortal by the prophet RMS. Just a word of advice: sound more rational if you wish to convince the uninitiated.

“So you admit that it is fundamentally wrong, but it is worth it in order to “win”.”
No. That’s just a quirk of the English language that made the best expression of my thoughts be taken to mean something else. I don’t think it’s fundamentally wrong if it allows us to win.

“AFAICT your interpretation of “win” is “gain market share”. And yet again I repeat that Free Software is not a popularity contest. How do you expect the principles of Freedom to prevail, if you violate and destroy those principles in order to have them more widely adopted? That’s not spreading the principles of Freedom, that’s capitulating to oppression.”
Market share will be a huge help in eliminating non-free software. It may even be crucial. The rest I already talked about above, and see no reason to repeat myself.

“But you are more than happy to believe unconditionally in the lie that the Intellectual Monopolists propagate?”
No. I don’t take legal advice from them either. Aside from that, I don’t know you, I don’t know your credentials, and I don’t anything else about you that may be relevant except that you are a devoted member of the free software movement and that your considerations are different than mine.

“By all means don’t take my word for it, consult a lawyer.”
Maybe I will.

“Attempting to claim “ownership” of maths formulae, or frankly any other knowledge, is simply perverse. However, US laws enforce this ridiculous concept, forbidding anyone from using that knowledge without permission from (and payment to) the “owner”.”
You fail to grasp the difference between action and lack thereof.

“Unless it is combined with a flagrant disregard for others’ Freedom, such as by tainting Free Software with non-Free software, as a kind of misguided “protest”.”
You completely misunderstood this. It’s an argument in favor of civil disobedience.

“What worse punishment is there than losing one’s liberty?”
When it’s already lost, and you might not only not regain it but also lose what little leverage you have in this world, and that’s money.

“Screw the “patent holder”. There should be no “patent holders” in the first place.”
But as long as there are, this would at least allow legal use of free software where only non-free software is now legally available. It changes nothing where patents hold no power, which is another advantage.

“Whatever happened to your “civil disobedience”?”
I told you I’m somewhat uncertain, and that those who for various reasons aren’t willing to perform it should still be allowed to get the maximum benefit of freedom that their situation allows.

[quote]
However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the “freedom to choose any license you want for software you write”. We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom.

This oft-overlooked distinction is crucial. Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom.

Proprietary software is an exercise of power.
[/quote]

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html