[pp.int.general] Why Free Software misses the point

[Radosław Nadstawny]

On Fri, 14 May 2010 00:49:58 +0200
Boris Turovskiy <tourovski at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ole,
> > I have to admit I had problems reading your critique of FSF. But
> > this discussion helps me to understand your viewpoint a little
> > better. For example, I understand that your main problem is with
> > the philosophy of the FSF, and that you do not mind the practical
> > advantages arising from such a philosophy.
> >    
> Well, it seemed to me that I was rather clear on that point, even the 
> article's name references Stallman's article "Why Open Source misses
> the point of Free software" (which I quote throughout the article and
> which is clearly focused on philosophy), but many reaction have shown
> that I was wrong and that the article appears on the outside to be
> generic anti-open source rather than a critique of the FSF
> philosophy. I think I'll have to modify it so that the article cannot
> be mistaken for an attack on open source software and the advantages
> it provides.
> 
> > Now you lost me again. The policy of FSF is to ensure people four
> > basic freedoms. How can ensuring people's freedoms be depreciating
> > of people's needs?
> >    
> Mr. Stallman says in his article that "powerful and reliable software 
> can be bad if it violates users' freedoms", while for the user, power 
> and stability are definitely more important than the "freedoms"
> defined by the FSF. Also, take a look at Radoslaw's mail in this
> thread where he wites about "people who only care about convenience"
> - that's a really depreciating attitude, isn't it?
> 
> Best regards,
> Boris
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general

Yes, I've written that majority of people care only about convenience,
and by that I only mean that majority of people don't realize the real
importance of many other things.

It seems to me that it's not the philosophy what makes you feel bad
about FSF, but rather their way of presenting this philosophy, which
can make it seem unattractive for most people. Isn't it the case?