Re: Advocating non-free softwares

[David Kastrup]

ryanmichaelmcclure <address@hidden> writes:

> The last that I checked, this was a LILYPOND mailing list, and not a
> battle about software freedom.

The last time I checked, this is the GNU LilyPond mailing list, and as a
GNU project making use of GNU resources, the GNU maintainer guidelines
are relevant for us.

<URL:http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/References.html>
states:

    When a non-free program or system is well known, you can mention it
    in passing—that is harmless, since users who might want to use it
    probably already know about it. For instance, it is fine to explain
    how to build your package on top of some widely used non-free
    operating system, or how to use it together with some widely used
    non-free program.

    However, you should give only the necessary information to help
    those who already use the non-free program to use your program with
    it—don’t give, or refer to, any further information about the
    proprietary program, and don’t imply that the proprietary program
    enhances your program, or that its existence is in any way a good
    thing. The goal should be that people already using the proprietary
    program will get the advice they need about how to use your free
    program with it, while people who don’t already use the proprietary
    program will not see anything likely to lead them to take an
    interest in it.

> Let those who want to have freedom use their OS, and those who don't
> care use their OS.

Those who don't care will not actively help Free Software including
LilyPond, so it is in LilyPond's best interest to make them care.  Which
is not necessarily the same as annoying them.  But it is also not the
same as hiding under a rock.

-- 
David Kastrup