[kodfodrasz]

Sun? This must be 10 years old at least... (Or the author has not stepped out from the basement where he/she lives in the last decade)

Also after having checked his/her works I'm not sure why would anyone want to use them (on windows or otherwise). For most of them there are other alternatives with less bigot authors for whom, if needed, one might even send contribution.

Bigots like Stallman or this author do the most harm to the image of free software movement.

[AnonymousPlanet]

Freeloading seems to be ok for you, but if the free software comes with any kind of sentiment or vision, you call the authors bigots? Thanks. Noted.

[kodfodrasz]

In my definition of freedom no visionary should tell me what can I do or can't. Actually I don't consider GPL and derivatives free licenses.

[AnonymousPlanet]

That's great for you and all. And should you ever publish open source software, slap on any license you wish.

Calling other people bigots because you don't think their idea of free is free enough, however, is very bad taste.

[kodfodrasz]

A gentleman does not argue about taste.

[AnonymousPlanet]

I beg to differ. Especially if anyone's public actions or expressions are of bad taste, it ought to be a matter of discussion.

Matters of preference (another meaning of "taste"), however, are hard to argue about.

[kodfodrasz]

> I beg to differ. Especially if anyone's public actions or expressions are of bad taste, it ought to be a matter of discussion.

I agree. that is why we are discussing why calling people who use windows ignorant supporters of evil is a form of bigotry.

[fwn]

There are many great visions!

But next to enabeling, productive visions there are also visions that end up making things worse.

I can understand that assessments differ, but I can see that this author clearly and explicitly envisions to force others into his preferred systems by encouraging to crippel their enviroment to make their everyday life worse.

This is not exactly the kind of vision I would like to support. I'm all in for positive, productive visions though.

[AnonymousPlanet]

I don't care if you support a particular vision. Calling people bigots, however, is a different thing.

[fwn]

I thought that is just the dismissive term for people that are believed to be destructivly committed to a specific idea.

You are right in implying that it is rude. What would be the socially acceptable term for this phenomenon?

[EpicEng]

It is, not sure why some are getting their panties in a bunch over the term here.

[AnonymousPlanet]

In your mind, are there bad visions and good visions? And you, of course, can tell the difference. You can of course see the destructive ones for what they are! And these bad ideas must be fought and purged before they cause damage. Is that it?

BTW, the author never expressed the wish to force anyone. It was a request.

It's not just the rude term that irks me here. I'm often getting a very fanatic vibe from people who viciously call out sentiments like the author's.

[fwn]

I wrote that there are good and bad visions and that assessment over a visions affiliation differs, yes. And I am pretty sure I can tell the difference.

Finding a position on a vision is something probably everyone can do. Bonus: In certain cases, if it is percieved to be relevant enough, it enables democratic societies to exercise what could be described as a public discourse.

But if it helps you I could claim the fighting/purging thing you tried to put into my mouth. ;)

His reason to not forbid it is because the GPL doesn't allow it. At least that's what I got from his second sentence.

I'm with you on the fanatic vibe people get in discussions on this issue. I think it's a weird effect of something which fundamentally seems to be a good signal: That people really care about the issue. That's ok for me. ..or at least a good start for a better exchange.

[kodfodrasz]

I totally don't get what freeloading has to do with this. Could you please explain?