Re: [directory-discuss] Antifeatures: Why GNU Radio needs a "nonfree do flag

[Anonymous]

Ian Kelling said:

> I just downloaded the docs using only free software.

'You don't "announce" proof, you share it. If they haven't shared
 it, then it's not proof. "I promise I have evidence" isn't really
 evidence.'

--Dwayne David Paul (in response to a CIA claim of proof)

So what URL did you use with what free software?

> So, that is not the case "in general", as you imply.

I named specific projects and specific breeches, so it's unclear why
you think this is generalized.  If you cannot reproduce the problem
then try explaining what you've tried so we can diagnose.

> It is the case for some users who use different software than me,
> but I can share it with them. See the 1st 2 paragraphs of
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Access

The "Words to Avoid" advice does not replace the "GNU Free
Documentation License", published here:

    https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/directory/fdl-1.3-standalone.html

and which states:

    "a free program should come with manuals providing the same
     freedoms that the software does."

Nor does the "Words to Avoid" advice replace a whole comprehensive
philosophy on the idea of putting a web interface between the user and
the artifacts (e.g. code and docs), published in the "Who does that
server really serve?" article:

  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html

which explains why it's a bad idea to give "the server operator unjust
power over the user," and why "that power is something we must
resist."