Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Talking about non-free software on the list

[Bob Ham]

The issue we were focussed on is the provision of instructions on how 
to install non-free software and the fact that there are users like 
myself who do not want to encounter such instructions, and the fact that 
those instructions explicitly contradict the FSF Guidelines.

I stated that the inclusion of any instructions at all implies that 
following those instructions is OK.  You gave examples where providing 
an explanation of how an action can be performed did not imply that 
performing that action was OK.  I pointed out that providing an 
explanation and providing instructions were not the same thing.

The examples you gave do not contradict my assertion that inclusion of 
*instructions* implies following those instructions is OK.


On 2013-03-20 08:23, MJ Ray wrote:

> explanation is OK, but instruction
> is not and one can't explain without effectively being instructions,
> therefore it appears the only way to keep FSF supporters happy is to
> not explain it either

Here, you're lamenting the fact that one can't "explain" how to install 
non-free software without keeping the FSF supporters happy.  Putting 
aside the issue of the difference between "explaining" and 
"instructing", why would do you want to explain to users how to install 
non-free software in the first place?  Why is there a desire to 
communicate with users about the installation non-free software?

It seems that in actual fact, you still want to help users install 
non-free software and this is the problem!  It doesn't matter if you use 
the word "explain" or "instruct", until this helping is done by third 
parties and not Debian, it will always be the problem!


--
Bob Ham <address@hidden>

for (;;) { ++pancakes; }