MS-DOS Date

[piratePenguin]

Why is the LGPL bad?

Go find my post.

What's so bad about companies being allowed to develop non-free software for Linux?

It will[i/] put more pressure on me to use the non-free applications.

Go on do me a favour and provide a valid argument to counter the last paragraph of my previous post. If you want the total amount of proprietary software in the world to decline then your best bet it to enourage it's use on the Linux platform especially when it comes to pushing developers to create Linux versions of their Windows programs. I hope you can figure out why this is  but I've got a feeling I'll have to explain it to you.

So we'll all go non-free for a while. We'll go back to 1980, or whenever it was that the software sharing communities were in decline. And then well go free! Yey!

I doubt it very much. It'd only make things much harder.

Plus, I like the way things are hopefully headed (and I've already explained this before).

That's the good thing about Linux, you have a choice.

We have a choice now, but in ten years time, will we?

If we keep accepting non-free software, wouldn't it make things harder in the future to go free-direction?

[Aloone_Jonez]

Go find my post.

I haven't got the time to search this forum, if you think your post was so damn important then you find it otherwise I'll assume it wasn't that hot.

It will[i/] put more pressure on me to use the non-free applications.

No it won't, you've already stated that many Linux distros contain non-free software and you've choosen not to use it, how will this change?

So we'll all go non-free for a while. We'll go back to 1980, or whenever it was that the software sharing communities were in decline. And then well go free! Yey!

Even if this is true, this would be better than things staying the way they are.

I doubt it very much. It'd only make things much harder.

Sorry I don't understand you, what do you mean? How would it  (whatever it is) make things (what things are you talking about) harder? :confused:

Plus, I like the way things are hopefully headed (and I've already explained this before).

Sorry to break this to you but Linux will never form the empire you'd like it to unless  it proves itself to companies so they can develop their own proprietary products for it like games for example -  yey, no more "I only use Windows because I can play my favourite games" arguements!

We have a choice now, but in ten years time, will we?

We'd have more choice if Linux was more popular with proprietary applications than we do now with Windows.

If we keep accepting non-free software, wouldn't it make things harder in the future to go free-direction?

You still haven't countered that final paragraph so I'll assume you've accepted it.

Anyway, encouraging non-free software on Linux would (as I've already said) push comercial developers to create Linux versions of their Windows programs, this would encourage people to migrate to Linux as they can now run thier favourate software on it without the buggyness of emulators like WINE and thus reducing Microsoft's market share - the're biggest proprietary software supplier and you're telling me that this won't help your cause. :rolleyes:

Which beggs another question do you think WINE is bad for Linux too?

[piratePenguin]

I haven't got the time to search this forum, if you think your post was so damn important then you find it otherwise I'll assume it wasn't that hot.

http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=100243&postcount=23

No it won't, you've already stated that many Linux distros contain non-free software and you've choosen not to use it, how will this change?

Because I never liked Java and I just might like Java2 (I have no idea about any plans for Java2, but it gets my point accross.).

Even if this is true, this would be better than things staying the way they are.

The way they are? Are you serious? Things couldn't be better - in my situation and alot of other people's situations.

Sorry I don't understand you, what do you mean? How would it  (whatever it is) make things (what things are you talking about) harder? :confused:

That, and the bit before it, was for the last paragraph of your legendary post :p

Sorry to break this to you but Linux will never form the empire you'd like it to unless  it proves itself to companies so they can develop their own proprietary products for it like games for example -  yey, no more "I only use Windows because I can play my favourite games" arguements!

I don't need a GNU/Linux empire. I just want myself and your average Joe to be able to live hastle-free lives without non-free software.

We'd have more choice if Linux was more popular with proprietary applications than we do now with Windows.

But we'd have less choice, and more hastle, for those who don't want to support non-free software.

Anyway, encouraging non-free software on Linux would (as I've already said) push comercial developers to create Linux versions of their Windows programs, this would encourage people to migrate to Linux as they can now run thier favourate software on it without the buggyness of emulators like WINE and thus reducing Microsoft's market share - the're biggest proprietary software supplier and you're telling me that this won't help your cause. :rolleyes:

I'm in two bandwagons - the anti-Microsoft one and the free-software one. The death of Microsoft wouldn't be good for the free software end of things if everyone switched to non-free operating system (e.g. Apple Mac OS X), or to a free operating system (e.g. FreeBSD, GNU/Linux) and used mostly non-free software to do their work.

Which beggs another question do you think WINE is bad for Linux too?

Most people use wine to run non-free software, but only because they want to use that non-free software. The answer is yes. No. Yes. No.

Damnit! I intended on saying "yes", up untill this very minute I would've said yes, but no. Right when I typed "but only because they want to use that non-free software" that changed it.

No I don't think it's a bad thing (BTW, I'm looking only at the free-software end of things in this thread.) for GNU/Linux, because all it means is that the non-free software will be more accessable to GNU/Linux users. Those who wanna use it can use it, and those who don't, don't, and that's the important thing.

[skyman8081]

[Aloone_Jonez]

Thanks for wasting my bandwidth skyman :rolleyes:

http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=100243&postcount=23

Yes let's look at that post in more detail:

I'm not bothered that some non-free developers have trouble getting their non-free programs onto our free operating system. I'm actually quite glad.

Why is reducing people's choice of software availble on the platform a good thing?

IMO, inventing the LGPL and applying it to glibc was a bad move by GNU. I'm quite surprised they did it. If it wasn't RMS in control (assuming it was. I dunno though, but I know that he definetly accepts the LGPL), I'd probably expect him to make his own GPL library.

RMS wanted a free operating system. He has it now, and now they're trying to make BIOSes free software. What they want is not a free operating system, but a system of entirely free software. So expliticly (why the hell won't google/dictionary.com help me spell that properly :mad:?) allowing non-free software on the system is just retarded.

You still haven't said why allowing non free software on to a free OS is a bad idea.

But they did it so the operating system could survive

No they did it to boost its popularity.

and maybe someday go mainstream.

Without the industry backing it?
I don't think so.

I've no doubt that the operating system would definetly have survived

Of couse it would have survided, but there's a very big differance between surviving and flourishing.

(we've got free alternatives for almost everything.

No you haven't and most of the alternatives available have a steeper leaning curve while others aren't proper alternatives since they lack some features that some users require or they are simply pure shit.

Currently we don't need non-free software for a usable system.),

So what?
How is this going to change?

but going mainstream is another thing entirely.

Which won't happen unless you allow proprietary software on the scene.

I wouldn't want it to go mainstream unless the major apps and the whole of the OS are free software. I mean, I don't want it to go mainstream unless my system can be totally free software (so all the tools I use must be free). I'd be surprised if RMS thought differently. Which is why I think for him to accept the LGPL, is just silly.

Right now you're making your finally point clear, you want the Linux operating system to remain completely free and not become semi-free which is fair enough but why would allowing proprietary software on it destroy this vision?

You've already said (as far as you're concerned anyway) they're are free alternatives for eveything and if they're supposed to be so much better than their proprietary counterparts then why are you so worried about competition all of a sudden?

I'd much prefer everything to be free software.

Well I prefer free software too it saves me money but I'm mature enough to accept that everything can't be free.

And to outlaw non-free software

Which is the retarded sort of totalitarian policy I and most of the industry will fight against because it's evil and would be an insult to humanity.

rather than welcome it like GNU did when they invented the LGPL.

If welcomming proprietary software will further Linux's goal of becomming the main OS than I think it'd be worth it.

Because I never liked Java and I just might like Java2 (I have no idea about any plans for Java2, but it gets my point accross.).

Why do you hate Java? Please give a reason other than simply because it's proprietary as I think we're all tired to that argument. Personally I dislike Java because it's slow even .NET might be better.

The way they are? Are you serious? Things couldn't be better - in my situation and alot of other people's situations.

Now look who's being selfish, "in my situation", what about me and the rest of the world, do you seriously think we're better off now with Winblow$ than we would be with Linux which I'd use if the proprietary software I rely on supported it?

That, and the bit before it, was for the last paragraph of your legendary post :p

Wow your debating skills really impress me! I presented a clear and detailed argument as to why encouraging proprietary software on Linux will increase its popularity and the best you can come up with is "not very likely", sorry not good enough, please provide reasons as to why allowing non-free software on the Linux scene won't help linux spread.

I don't need a GNU/Linux empire. I just want myself and your average Joe to be able to live hastle-free lives without non-free software.

So, just carry on using you non-free software then, nothing's going to stop you.

But we'd have less choice, and more hastle, for those who don't want to support non-free software.

Why do you think this?
I say bullshit, you'd have far more choice, more people would have the option of running Linux if the proprietary software they need supported it and adding proprietary options to the big list of free options would give an increased number of options to the Linux user.

I'm in two bandwagons - the anti-Microsoft one and the free-software one.

So am I, but that doesn't make me totally anti-proprietary.

The death of Microsoft wouldn't be good for the free software end of things if everyone switched to non-free operating system (e.g. Apple Mac OS X),

That's true I suppose, plus Apple owning the industry would be worse than Microsoft in my opinion as they'd own both the OS and the hardware, but this won't happen anyway.

or to a free operating system (e.g. FreeBSD, GNU/Linux) and used mostly non-free software to do their work.

I doubt this will happen either, most people would use free software like OpenOffice for most of their needs and they'd continiue  to rely on proprietary software for the more specialized things like CAD electronics design and even games. Allowing  non-free software on to Linux won't make it like Windows currently is. Windows started of as non-free and Linux began as completely free which can't and will never change all that will happen is people will be given a wider choice of software on the Linux platform.

Most people use wine to run non-free software, but only because they want to use that non-free software. The answer is yes. No. Yes. No.

Damnit! I intended on saying "yes", up untill this very minute I would've said yes, but no. Right when I typed "but only because they want to use that non-free software" that changed it.

yes, no, yes, make your mind up.

Sersiously, now I hope you can see that pushing developers to create Linux versions of their software will remove many of the roadblocks in the away many of people using Linux.

No I don't think it's a bad thing (BTW, I'm looking only at the free-software end of things in this thread.) for GNU/Linux, because all it means is that the non-free software will be more accessable to GNU/Linux users. Those who wanna use it can use it, and those who don't, don't, and that's the important thing.

Alright then you don't have a problem with WINE but what about WINElib?
Why is encourageing ex-Windows users to run thier old Windows programs with WINE any worse than encouraging the companies who write the software to create Linux versions? The latter is more constructive as it'll provide the user with more choice.

[piratePenguin]

We have a choice: free or non-free.
I chose free, for two main reasons: free is the way things should be, and, non-free is the way things shouldn't be.

[piratePenguin]

Why is reducing people's choice of software availble on the platform a good thing?

Because it's reducing the choice of non-free software available on a free operating system.

Remind me, why did RMS begin the GNU project?

No they did it to boost its popularity.

Same idea.

Without the industry backing it?
I don't think so.

Yes - that's why they invented the LGPL.

No you haven't and most of the alternatives available have a steeper leaning curve while others aren't proper alternatives since they lack some features that some users require or they are simply pure shit.

So long as they're livable, it wouldn't matter to me.

Which won't happen unless you allow proprietary software on the scene.

Exactly my point (well, same idea).

Right now you're making your finally point clear, you want the Linux operating system to remain completely free and not become semi-free which is fair enough but why would allowing proprietary software on it destroy this vision?

The operating system itself would be free. But you won't get much work done on an operating system alone. If the most popular or the better software isn't free - that'll create more pressure for everyone to use non-free software.

You've already said (as far as you're concerned anyway) they're are free alternatives for eveything and if they're supposed to be so much better than their proprietary counterparts then why are you so worried about competition all of a sudden?

Err, I never said they were all better than the non-free counterparts (good word. I would usually say "alternative" but I say that too much in the wrong places.).

Which is the retarded sort of totalitarian policy I and most of the industry will fight against because it's evil and would be an insult to humanity.

"GNU you mother fuckers! You've licenced your glibc library under the fucking GPL! Now it'll be a fucking bitch to write software for your operating system unless it's free."

Yea, I can imagine it.

If welcomming proprietary software will further Linux's goal of becomming the main OS than I think it'd be worth it.

I don't. And I dunno how RMS feels on the matter - I must email him sometime. Seeing as he accepts the LGPL... I'd have no idea.

Why do you hate Java? Please give a reason other than simply because it's proprietary as I think we're all tired to that argument.

It's increadibly slow, and C# kicks it's balls.
If Microsoft can beat it - it must suck (that was a joke).

Personally I dislike Java because it's slow even .NET might be better.

From what I know about .NET, it rocks in areas.

Now look who's being selfish, "in my situation", what about me and the rest of the world, do you seriously think we're better off now with Winblow$ than we would be with Linux which I'd use if the proprietary software I rely on supported it?

Actually, I said "Things couldn't be better - in my situation and alot of other people's situations.".

Note, and note well, the very distinct "and alot of other people's situations".

Wow your debating skills really impress me!

Thank you

I presented a clear and detailed argument as to why encouraging proprietary software on Linux will increase its popularity and the best you can come up with is "not very likely", sorry not good enough, please provide reasons as to why allowing non-free software on the Linux scene won't help linux spread.

You presented, IMO, a very retarded view. And I replied with (just taking the piss):

So we'll all go non-free for a while. We'll go back to 1980, or
whenever it was that the software sharing communities were in decline.
And then well go free! Yey!



I doubt it very much. It'd only make things much harder.



Plus, I like the way things are hopefully headed (and I've already explained this before).

Your magnificant idea, or whatever the hell it is, might well be good at gaining more popularity for GNU/Linux. But I would doubt that it wouldn't have damaging consequences freedom-wise, in the short and long term.

So, just carry on using you non-free software then, nothing's going to stop you.

Jesus. Typo, right?

Why do you think this?
I say bullshit, you'd have far more choice, more people would have the option of running Linux if the proprietary software they need supported it and adding proprietary options to the big list of free options would give an increased number of options to the Linux user.

Did you read the whole sentence?
"for those who don't want to support non-free software"

yes, no, yes, make your mind up.

I did. And it was a tough call. But yea, I did.

Alright then you don't have a problem with WINE but what about WINElib?
Why is encourageing ex-Windows users to run thier old Windows programs with WINE any worse than encouraging the companies who write the software to create Linux versions? The latter is more constructive as it'll provide the user with more choice.

I answered yes.

[piratePenguin]

I'm mature enough to accept that everything can't be free.

Who's talking about everything being free here?
We're talking about software that is free and software that isn't free.
Understanding that is very fucking important!

[Aloone_Jonez]

Because it's reducing the choice of non-free software available on a free operating system.

Which would make the operating system shit because people would have a smaller range of software to choose from, a good OS is no good if it doesn't have good wide range software and games some of which are only catered for by proprietary developers.

Remind me, why did RMS begin the GNU project?

To support the sharing of code and discourage closed source programs, but at least they've had the sense to realize that blind hate of proprietary software won't help thier cause, and allowing its use on their OS will increase it's popularity, hence the popularity of free software in general.

Yes - that's why they invented the LGPL.

So how is gaining the support of the industry a bad thing?

So long as they're livable, it wouldn't matter to me.

You're being selfish again, you can only see things from your perspective or that  of people with similar beliefs as yourself.

The operating system itself would be free.

Of course that will never change.

But you won't get much work done on an operating system alone. If the most popular or the better software isn't free - that'll create more pressure for everyone to use non-free software.

How could that change?

There will be no preasure at all, people will just have the ability to migrate to Linux from Windows and continiue to run play their games and use Protel and Pro Engineer for designing things.

Err, I never said they were all better than the non-free counterparts

You're spot on there.

(good word. I would usually say "alternative" but I say that too much in the wrong places.).

I suppose it was quite good, for you at least.

"GNU you mother fuckers! You've licenced your glibc library under the fucking GPL! Now it'll be a fucking bitch to write software for your operating system unless it's free."

Yes, too bad my company can't use Linux because the vendors who supply us with the software we rely on will never have the chance to develop Linux versions, thank you RMS and FUCK YOU TOO! :fu:

Yea, I can imagine it.

So can I but only comming from the mouths of ignoramuses.

I don't. And I dunno how RMS feels on the matter - I must email him sometime. Seeing as he accepts the LGPL... I'd have no idea.

Go on discuss this with him, I hope he's got plenty of patience because he's sure going to need it.

It's increadibly slow, and C# kicks it's balls.
If Microsoft can beat it - it must suck (that was a joke).
From what I know about .NET, it rocks in areas.

I agree.

Actually, I said "Things couldn't be better - in my situation and alot of other people's situations.".

You're still being selfish, you're only considering the people in the same position as you. What about the rest of the world? Are you telling everyone else in a differant situation or opinion to go to hell?

Note, and note well, the very distinct "and alot of other people's situations".

Well done! You still continiue to demonstrate how un-objective you are and how you are incapable of seeing things from anyone else's viewpoint - this is also the critical flaw in your debating style.

Thank you

Someone obviously doesn't have their sarcasm radar tuned in.

You presented, IMO, a very retarded view. And I replied with (just taking the piss):Your magnificant idea, or whatever the hell it is,

[sarcasm] It's nice to see how respectful you are of other's opinions[/sarcasm]

might well be good at gaining more popularity for GNU/Linux.

Correct, this is a very good thing as it'd move more people away from Windows as well as increasing the use of free software.

But I would doubt that it wouldn't have damaging consequences freedom-wise, in the short and long term.

The LGPL is very good freedom wise because it allows people the freedom to develop Linux versions of their products which will in turn give more people the freedom to choose a Linux based operating system.

Jesus. Typo, right?

No, I was just respecting your point of view which is that proprietary software is evil and you refuse to use it which is your choice and right and I respect it even though I dsagree.

Did you read the whole sentence?
"for those who don't want to support non-free software"

No one's forcing you to support non-free software.

I did. And it was a tough call. But yea, I did.

I answered yes.

I'm glad you got there in the end and I hope your head doesn't hurt.

Alright you obviously think allowing companies to develop Linux versions of their propretary products is bad and WINE is too. How about the other way round?

Do you think it's worng to port free Linux programs to Windows? Is this bad for Linux?

I think this is also good idea as after all it's increasing the number of people using the free product.

[piratePenguin]

Which would make the operating system shit because people would have a smaller range of software to choose from, a good OS is no good if it doesn't have good wide range software and games some of which are only catered for by proprietary developers.

It'd still be perfectly usable.

at least they've had the sense to realize that blind hate of proprietary software won't help thier cause

"blind hate"? "blind"?
Like I've already said:

I chose free, for two main reasons: free is the way things should be, and, non-free is the way things shouldn't be.

and allowing its use on their OS will increase it's popularity, hence the popularity of free software in general.

Exactly, they did it for popularity, at least from what I can see...

So how is gaining the support of the industry a bad thing?

Because the large bulk of the industry is non-free.

The more non-free software on a free operating system, fuckit, the more non-free software in the world. Actually, that's completely wrong, the less free software, the less choice and the harder it is for those who don't want to use non-free software.

You're being selfish again, you can only see things from your perspective or that  of people with similar beliefs as yourself.

No, ass, I speak for myself, and only myself.

I dunno if it'd matter to Joe Stupid and friends. How the fuck would I? How do you expect me to?

How could that change?

How couldn't it change?

I suppose it was quite good, for you at least.

Now why is that?

Yes, too bad my company can't use Linux because the vendors who supply us with the software we rely on will never have the chance to develop Linux versions, thank you RMS and FUCK YOU TOO! :fu:

Eh, no. Again, if you read what I said, "unless it's free", then, well, it all makes sense.

So can I but only comming from the mouths of ignoramuses.

I was emulating what you and your buddies would be saying. But yea, I agree.

Go on discuss this with him, I hope he's got plenty of patience because he's sure going to need it.

I'd imagine he does...

Didn't he start GNU or something like that?

I agree.

You're still being selfish, you're only considering the people in the same position as you. What about the rest of the world? Are you telling everyone else in a differant situation or opinion to go to hell?

Well I dunno what it's like to be in their situation so how the fuck can I speak for them?

Someone obviously doesn't have their sarcasm radar tuned in.

Mine's tuned in alright. But I just couldn't not seize the moment.

[sarcasm] It's nice to see how respectful you are of other's opinions[/sarcasm]

Well you're not very respectful to me or my opinions either - so don't even go there.

And I was just being honest - it was the stupidest thing I heard in a long time.

The LGPL is very good freedom wise because it allows people the freedom to develop Linux versions of their products which will in turn give more people the freedom to choose a Linux based operating system.

It gives developers the freedom to use a free project in their own and not give their users any freedom. I'm against it.

No, I was just respecting your point of view which is that proprietary software is evil and you refuse to use it which is your choice and right and I respect it even though I dsagree.

Are you sure?

Re: "Hippy luney" et cetera.

No one's forcing you to support non-free software.

Noone's forcing anyone to use Windows or any other Microsoft product (e.g. Office/Word).

How about the other way round?

Do you think it's worng to port free Linux programs to Windows? Is this bad for Linux?

It's a good thing for free software, but as for GNU/Linux, it's most likely a bad thing, but I'm not interested in that.

I think this is also good idea as after all it's increasing the number of people using the free product.

Same.

[skyman8081]

PP, You're turning Economics into Morality.  Stop it.

[Aloone_Jonez]

piratePenguin,
You haven't raised any new points in your above post so I suppose I can't raise anything new by responding to each section of your post individualy (I can if you really wish I just don't see the point). So I think I'll approach this from a diffearnt angle.

I'm going to put across my interpritation of your view point and I'll put forward things from my perspective, please correct me (in the unlikely event) I make any errors.

Your stance:
Proprietary software is evil because the software companies are writing software and keeping their source code a trade secret this reduces the potential for competition to exist as they can also keep their data structures secret thus making it hard for their competitors software to interoperate with it.

ELUAs are an insult to humanity because they limit your rights to copy and redistribute the software, also they allow the turms of the licence to change without your consent.

GNU Linux should avoid it like the plague and make it as hard a possible for people to implement it on a Linux based operating system.

Proprietary software on Linux is a bad thing because it will push out free software and it'll become impossible to do my work with out it so I will have lost the right to choose to only support free software.

My oppinion:
Proprietary software is no more evil or selfish than earning money and not sharing the vast majority of it, competition would exist if many companies had equal market share as they'd all make their products interoperate with their competitor's, the only reason why this isn't the case is because Microsoft has a stranglehold on the entire industry it doesn't mean that propreitary software is evil.

ELUAs protect the company's right to keep control of their code and allow them to reep the benifits of their hard work. Any Licence can be changed without the user's consent and this includes the GPL - they can suddenly decide to make it proprietary if they own the copyright so in this respect it's not differant.

Actively encouraging free software on the Linux platform is a great idea because it's boosts investment in Linux on the whole and hence the userbase even more so when it comes to moving people away from Windows.

Right, now I'm going to pretend I agree with you on the basis that proprietary software is evil (even though I don't) but I shall also argue that allowing it's use on the Linux platform is ultimately good for GNU Linux and free software in general.

We've already established that allowing proprietary software on Linux will increase Linux's's userbase, now this will also cause the use of proprietary software to decline since people will drop Windows and move to Linux thus helping the GNU's cause.

Alright we've also said that the use of proprietary stuff on Linux will increase but this won't damage the free software already on the Linux platform, in fact it's likely to help it as the very action of getting more people to use Linux will introduce them to new free software. I doubt that people will start dropping Linux free software and switching to proprietary alternatives as they will have no need to, the proprietary software on Linux will mainly serve to accommodate ex-Windows users and fill in the gaps free software has largely forgot like design software and games.

People are inherently lazy and as you well know they tend to just use what software comes with their system, on Windows this was all proprietary (Internet Explorer Outlook etc.) but now on Linux this is mostly free  so they're far more likely to drop their proprietary stuff for the free stuff just because it'd be too much effort not too.

Well I dunno what it's like to be in their situation so how the fuck can I speak for them?

That's your problem, you can't speak for others in who are totally reliant on proprietary software, you seem to blaming them for this, how is it their fault that they have requirements not meet by free software?

Here's some friendly advice for you, and please don't take offence I'm not being malicious in saying this:
You really need to try to be more objective, the secret to sucessful debating is to try and see things from as many angles as possible, then it's quite easy to predict how people are going to respond to you because you can see it from their perspective, this allows you to always remain one step ahead.

[worker201]

Personally, I would distinguish between Open Source software and Free Software.  I use open source software because I can change it or borrow code if I want.  I use free software because it's free.  GNU software is both open and free, which makes it doubly cool.

Yeah, I know I'm not even a part of your little flamewars, but I thought I would post anyway.

[skyman8081]

You know, I this thread has a lot of Fuckidycocktards.

[piratePenguin]

PP, You're turning Economics into Morality.  Stop it.

We're talking about GNU and the LGPL.

piratePenguin,
You haven't raised any new points in your above post so I suppose I can't raise anything new by responding to each section of your post individualy (I can if you really wish I just don't see the point). So I think I'll approach this from a diffearnt angle.

Just what I was thinking.

GNU Linux should avoid it like the plague and make it as hard a possible for people to implement it on a Linux based operating system.

No, GNU shouldn't welcome non-free software. They did it with the LGPL, but now I'm kinda thinking that they didn't do if because of this, but they did it because very quickly somone would've made another C library that would alow non-free software to link to, more people would use it, and perhaps, GNU would have to eventually too.

Proprietary software on Linux is a bad thing because it will push out free software and it'll become impossible to do my work with out it so I will have lost the right to choose to only support free software.

I wouldn't have lost the right, it'd only make it harder.

Proprietary software is no more evil or selfish than earning money and not sharing the vast majority of it

I think that's quite an exaggeration.

People need at least a small bit of money (or a large bit of money), to pay for whatever they need (quite a confusing term).

Most people only earn enough for themselves and maybe their family (and the government). If they had to give a "vast majority" of it to charity (that does, I think, qualify as sharing), they would be at a tremendous loss (depending on how much they earn and how much they share, they could be unable to pay rent and buy food.).

However, for some people, sharing a vast majority of what they earn wouldn't be such a danger (e.g. Bill Gates).

competition would exist if many companies had equal market share as they'd all make their products interoperate with their competitor's, the only reason why this isn't the case is because Microsoft has a stranglehold on the entire industry it doesn't mean that propreitary software is evil.

That might be true, but I can't really see this ever happening.

Microsoft isn't the first software company with a monopoly, and they might not be the last either.

Right, now I'm going to pretend I agree with you on the basis that proprietary software is evil (even though I don't) but I shall also argue that allowing it's use on the Linux platform is ultimately good for GNU Linux and free software in general.

Having read that (the rest of the post), I'm still not convinced.

A web-browser is a very important tool. If Opera allowd it, I would say that alot (probably most) of GNU/Linux distributions would ship with  the non-free Opera web-browser. Firefox would have less users and developers, and in the future when new technologies are invented for the web, it'll be increasingly difficult to survive supporting only free software.

There are very few completely free GNU/Linux distributions out there (but that depends on what you mean by "completely free GNU/Linux distributions"). Most come with Java, and other less-significant non-free software.

I don't think explitically allowing non-free software on GNU will further GNU's cause (freedom), but I'd like to think otherwise.

That's your problem, you can't speak for others in who are totally reliant on proprietary software, you seem to blaming them for this, how is it their fault that they have requirements not meet by free software?

In what way do I seem to be blaming them?

I know my situation is pretty damn good. I know some other people's isn't so good. I don't know how important it is to them that they don't support non-free software. But I can narrow it down a small bit to: most people don't give a fuck. And IMO that's partly the reason that non-free everything and other (even slight) evils (or non-ideals) are so common in this world.