Dormant non-free software.
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
1.Example:
You are have TV box with built-in web browser. The web browser have built-in Adobe Flash plugin. You can't remove Adobe Flash plugin. But you CAN disable it in the browser preferences.
I think this will be equivalent to removing of non-free soft. Removing are better only because such trash takes up space on hard disk/SSD. But maybe you are think different?
2.Example:
Almost same situation. Now you CAN'T disable Adobe Flash plugin. But every time when browser see "flash" content, one will ask you question:"The site need Adobe Flash plugin. Do you want to launch it?" You can refuse to launch it.
I think, if you will be always refuse to launch the plugin, then this will be equivalent to removing of the plugin. Although it is exhausting.
Unless there is DRM you can install GNU/Linux on that TV and run a free browser.
If there is DRM (which seems to be the case in this example) which would prevent you from doing this then it is evil by default.
Maybe TV box is not such good illustration of my thought ...
Another example. I'm owner of Wine@Etersot copy. It is commercial version of Wine with some non-free components. Wine@Etersoft is not installed now, but I have deb-package on my hard disk.
The solution to that problem is easy: delete the deb-package that contains nonfree software.
But more to the point: what are you looking for? Approval? Remember, it is you who is hurt if you run nonfree software, not others, and if you have "dormant" nonfree software on your system, it is you who are at risk, not others. Giving something with nonfree software on it to someone else is a different story, though, since in that case it is that person who is at risk or harmed.
"The solution to that problem is easy"
But is there a problem? The software is NOT installed.
Otherwise, we will get to the point of absurdity.
Because there are a lot of sources of non-free software. The Internet, for example. If I will follow your logic, I must disconnect from Internet, because there are billions of sites with setup files of non-free soft.
"what are you looking for?"
I'm just curious.
I want to find any logical arguments "pro and contra"
You are making a false comparison and mis-representing his logic.
In one situation the package is clearly non-free. It is good for only one thing, installing a non-free program. If you are committed to only using free software the package is of no use to you. If you reject non-free software your solution is simple. Delete it.
In the other disconnecting the internet is not a true comparison. Yes, the internet can be used to install non-free software and look up those instructions. However there are plenty of websites which do distribute free software. I can use the internet for those good purposes as well. So in this case a person who is committed to using only free software can just avoid the sites that supply non-free software and only download software from sites that provide free software (e.g. trisquel, gnu, ect.)
There is no reason to keep a nonfree program "dormant" on your computer except to use it later. That would be a bad choice to make. Delete it now, and you will not risk being tempted to sacrifice your freedom for functionality in the future.
Yes, I want to install it later. Because I noticed, that Wine@Etersotf can run such software, with which does not run on the free version. Therefore, I want to make an experiment. I'll try to find differences in the settings between free and non-free version. And then, I will try to run software on a free version with the new settings.
But I have fast Internet-connection. If I will need this functionality, I can be tempted regardless of existence of file on my hard disk.
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios