Re: gnuplot

[Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl>]

On 2015-02-12, at 15:14, Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> wrote:

> On 2015-02-11, at 17:11, Javier Fernandez <jafernan@faeroes.freeshell.org> wrote:
>
>> [...]  I think at some point they will release it under a more
>> liberal license.  Otherwise gnuplot will stagnate.  There are GPL
>
> Just my 2 cents: GPL is not necessarily what should be called
> a "liberal" license -- personally I find it rather restrictive, in
> a sense.

BTW: I do not like to sound trollish, but there was recently a heated
discussion with exceptionally rude posts on Org-mode mailing list about
so-called non-"free" (free-as-in-Free-Software-Foundation, to be
precise) software.

It was stated there that GNU mailing lists do not allow promotion of
non-"free" software.  So - if gnuplot is apparently not kosher - what is
the official stance on this very thread?  I'm asking because it was
stated in that discussion that

> [Redacted] is non-free software, and people should not install it, or
> suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists.

and in another post

> Please stop using the GNU mailing lists to promote proprietary
> software.

(To be fair, not all participants seemed to agree with the above -
rather extreme - quotes, and there was also a polite explanation of why
informing about [redacted] was not necessarily a good idea on Org-mode
mailing list.)

I'd really like to understand what is good and what is evil according to
the FSF, and - also from sheer curiosity - why is the current thread
even allowed here (not to mention that there's even a discussion about
a *possibility* of including gnuplot-mode in Emacs itself, which -
according to what was said in the mentioned thread - sounds
sacrilegious).

This thread is another hint for me that there's something fishy going on
with all this "free-software" talk.  I'm afraid that - as is often the
case - when some organization (three-letter or not) says that it aims to
"promote [somebody's] freedom and to defend the rights of all
[somebodies]", it's really some politics and not anybody's freedom it's
all about.  (If there is another explanation for this seemingly unfair
treatment of various software projects, please do enlighten me!)  Even
though I do not personally agree with RMS or FSF, I have to say that
*if* this is indeed the case, I would be rather saddened and seriously
disappointed - until recently, I really believed in good intentions
(however mistaken their morality) behind the FSF.

Regards,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University