Re: referencing non-free software

[Francesco Ariis]

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 02:52:00PM -0500, Ilya Shlyakhter wrote:
> "Of the many things you can accuse the FSF of, this is not one
> of them" -- It's a direct quote from
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html .

Touché. You left out:

> Those who benefit from the current system where programs are property
> offer two arguments in support of their claims to own programs: the
> emotional argument and the economic argument.

the "emotional argument" being applicable here (at the risk of
being wrong again, I did not find that specific beOrg quote via
a customary search; I am ready to concede he will licence it under
a free-software licence once users start to flock in numbers).
I think it is unfair quote to the FSF, as they worked very hard to
dismantle the `libre == gratis` equivalence. :)

I am not going to be embroiled in this any further; *some* of the
arguments you made in this and the orgmode ML threads seems to come
from an open-source perspective.
Again, nothing wrong with it, but when it's ethically a no-no (from
a free software perspective) and practically dubious (i.e. is there
any evidence people are turned away from Org because because of it?),
I can see how the developers aren't impressed much by the pitch.