Slashdot Mirror

You're right. I didn't notice that the LGPL had "the same user" where the standard GPL has "any third party," and made a bad assumption. Yet another reason not to choose LGPL.

The GPL v2 doesn't say that distributing one binary of a GPL-licensed work to one person requires the distributor to offer the source to everyone in the world either. The Official FAQ explains this. Though distributing a binary of a GPL work implicitly grants a license to everyone, it does not require the distributor to offer source to everyone, but only those who received a binary from the distributor, either directly or indirectly.

Though LGPL 2.1 and GPL 2.0 have different wording, it's pretty clear that the neither is intended to require a distributor to provide source to those who did not receive a binary, which would be an unreasonable burden. In the typical case, it is not difficult to provide sources on a public website to everyone, but no FSF license has ever required this AFAIK.

You're right. I didn't notice that the LGPL had "the same user" where the standard GPL has "any third party," and made a bad assumption. Yet another reason not to choose LGPL.

The GPL v2 doesn't say that distributing one binary of a GPL-licensed work to one person requires the distributor to offer the source to everyone in the world either. The Official FAQ explains this. Though distributing a binary of a GPL work implicitly grants a license to everyone, it does not require the distributor to offer source to everyone, but only those who received a binary from the distributor, either directly or indirectly.

Though LGPL 2.1 and GPL 2.0 have different wording, it's pretty clear that the neither is intended to require a distributor to provide source to those who did not receive a binary, which would be an unreasonable burden. In the typical case, it is not difficult to provide sources on a public website to everyone, but no FSF license has ever required this AFAIK.

they are legally required to make available source code of any LGPL-licensed components to whomever they have distributed binaries

You need to read your licenses better, or stop believing people who don't know what they are talking about. The only provision in the LGPL for only giving source to people you have given binaries to is if you give the source and binaries together. If you don't give source and binaries together, then you are required to give source to any party that requests it.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is or what you're disputing, but I think you're saying that distributing a binary of an LGPL-licensed library to anyone requires the distributor to offer to source to everyone. This is not the case. The relevant section from LGPL 2.1:

4. You may copy and distribute the Library (or a portion or derivative of it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange.

If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

"Offering access to copy from a designated place" does not imply a public web site, though that's obviously the most common method. There is nothing saying that source must be provided to anyone who did not receive a binary. For example, a password-protected FTP account would fulfill the requirement if the person who received the binary had the password for the FTP account.

Here and here.

Thanks. Good reading, at least the first one about RMS. RMS is wise. I particularly like his Eric Raymond observations. The last chapter about the book license and publishing deal contains the exciting bits.

Of course you know that the FSF has no problem with selling software - it is all about "free as in speech" and not about "free as in beer".

Of course. I just thought it was amusing that they were not prominently displaying where to find the free PDFs as they want software publishers to prominently display where to find the source code. I guess to carry the joke further I should ask if the books code with a CD with the LaTex files? ;-)

Of course you know that the FSF has no problem with selling software - it is all about "free as in speech" and not about "free as in beer".

Here and here.

Good. The main pages didn't seem to mention these free version. They seemed to obfuscate the issue with the free to anonymously pay cash comment:

These books will be available electronically as PDFs but will notably not be distributed in the Amazon Kindle format or for any other proprietary ebook reading platform, because of the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) those systems impose on users. "This malicious device," says Stallman, "is designed to attack the traditional freedoms of readers: There's the freedom to acquire a book anonymously, paying cash — impossible with the Kindle for all well-known recent books. There's the freedom to give, lend, or sell a book to anyone you wish — blocked by DRM and unjust licenses. Then there's the freedom to keep a book — denied by a back door for remote deletion of books."

Here and here.

Mumble and other such open-source projects already to a marvelous work on eliminating echos, feed-back, and the like.

The current problem is really NAT-to-NAT users.
Absolutely all half decent alternatives to Skype use open standards. Like H323 and SIP.
And the main problems is that these standards were never designed with NAT in mind.
They assume things like specific ports being always internet-wide visible (to be callable, both SIP and H323 require you to have an open specific port on which callers can catch you).
And absolutely all standards (H323, SIP *and* XMPP/Jingle) assume that all the software has to do is to listen to a few UDP ports, perhaps with the help of a little STUN. (Whereas sometimes, even default firewall of most modern Linux installs would interfere with this. Not to speak the NAT topologies of lots of home networks).

What is needed is one of the following three :

A. either designing a new standard protocole which better takes into account the problems of modern NATed networks.
That was partially the idea behind XMPP/Simple (XMPP doesn't need internetwide open ports, so for initiating calls, it works better than the others)

B. or, design a new software which pack all the necessary elements
- perfect cryptography support (OTR for chat, ZRTP for voice and video). That in itself will be a huge gain over Skype (which has officially stated that their are open to collaborate with governments and official. Meaning that they probably have back-doors).
- SIP and/or XMPP/Jingle clients
- support for STUN and TURN in case of problematic firewalls
- integrated STUN server, which can help other users behind NATs if the client currently benefits a situation where it is directly internet-wide accessible and can help others punch wholes. This has to be optionally selected by the user (unlike skype which forces its equivalent functionality).
- integrated TURN server, to help forward calls when simple whole punching doesn't cut it. This has to be optionally selected by the user (unlike skype which forces its equivalent functionality).
- integration with Network manager so mobile devices (laptops and the like) can automatically detect and adapt their offered network services to varying networking connection. (no TURN when on 3G, no STUN when behind a NATed firewall, etc.)
- integration with distributions' firewall
- an automatic discovery system on the local network (avahi and the like to quickly find peers)
- an automatic discovery system on the global network (finding seeds, just like any Peer-2-Peer system).
All these building blocks already exists, but no one has already been able to combine them to provide a completely "flawless, zero-setup-required" experience
This solution has the advantage of nicely working with pre existing infra structures.

C. last but not least
a mixture of A and B which simply then shows up as a local SIP or XMPP/Jabber server.
Use your existing favorite SIP or Jingle solutions (use Ekiga or Pidgin) and then let the proxy connect you to the magical "skype-perfect" new-gen peer-2-peer VoIP network.
That's the idea behind project like "SIP Witch". Build a peer-2-peer nework, and connect with SIP to your local node running on your machine.

In development: http://planet.gnu.org/gnutelephony/?p=14

Yes, an Android-powered phone with the "Unknown sources" checkbox turned on is a general-purpose personal computer in a handheld form factor.

We appear to disagree on the definition of a word. Layne's Law implies that rational debate cannot continue until this is resolved. So what is the fundamental difference between a video game console and a personal computer? I can think of two differences, neither of which appears relevant to the processing or graphics rendering capability:

• Consoles come with standard-definition TV output as a standard feature, in addition to any high-definition capability. This, along with the smaller form factor, is responsible for getting a console into a living room instead of under a desk.
• Console firmware verifies digital signatures of all applications, and a home user ordinarily cannot add a certificate to run his own homemade applications or free software.

I think that the lack of guided optimization on gcc is a fair indication that Microsoft offers a better compiler

Maybe I've misunderstood your meaning, but wasn't the whole point of this article that with a newer gcc you can use guided optimization and link-time code generation ?

Maybe its just because I use MSVC and gcc every day, but when MSVC lacks even C99 support I find it hard to call it a "better compiler".

-Malloc

I think that the lack of guided optimization on gcc is a fair indication that Microsoft offers a better compiler

Maybe I've misunderstood your meaning, but wasn't the whole point of this article that with a newer gcc you can use guided optimization and link-time code generation ?

Maybe its just because I use MSVC and gcc every day, but when MSVC lacks even C99 support I find it hard to call it a "better compiler".

-Malloc

I, um, forget. Google only returns a FreeBSD mailing list post, and I'm pretty sure I haven't read that particular post before. If you're feeling hopeless, the land of GNU maintains a large site of similar humour, which is one of several things I wish they would stop including in emacs's etc directory.

One proposal to that dilemma which I have read is to make it illegal to both sell internet access directly to residential consumers and own backbone or content.

I'd like to see a good definition of "content" first. If "content" includes any copyrighted audiovisual work, then any residential ISP will own "content", even if it is only the advertisements for its own service.

I would do what I do now: only trust open source software from reputable repositories.

Over my years of using free software (in the GNU sense) on Windows and Linux, I've found a few classes of software for which I don't see open source or free software taking over any time soon.

Games are one of them because they're made of more components than just a computer program, and the authors of high-quality other components don't yet discovered free culture motives to the same extent as programmers. Even if the engine itself is free, developers of the meshes, textures, audio, and scripts that sit on top of the engine still need to eat. What is an emulator without ROMs, or Doom without WADs, or ScummVM without the original LucasArts data files? And though selling support works for some kinds of business software, games that aren't massively multiplayer tend to need far less support from the publisher.

Tax preparation will also probably remain proprietary because "ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY", as several free software licenses put it, just doesn't cut it. The big tax preparation software companies (Intuit and H&R Block) stake their corporate reputations on the accuracy and timeliness of their translations into machine-readable form of the unending changes to the tax codes in dozens of jurisdictions.

Linux is more far-left than far-right ever since the Stallmanists came to dominate everything. GNU/Linux, indeed. You know there are even words we're not supposed to use? These guys are in dire need of some McCarthyism.

It's weird that we haven't seen a gpg encryption option for TLS yet though, there's no technical difficulty I can see.

Actually there is support for using gpg keys for TLS key exchange, see RFC 6091 for reference. It is supported by GnuTLS and described on their website, but not in widespread use as far as I know.

Both your statements are equally true of commercial software.

True, because commercial free software exists. But just in case by "commercial" you meant "proprietary", I'll answer those:

With proprietary software, you choose on whom to depend.

With free software, I can choose from depending on one supplier of a program to depending on another supplier of the same program, with switching costs far less than the cost to switch from one program to another.

With proprietary software, companies compete for you to depend on them. If they stop, you can switch to another company offering support for the product. The more popular proprietary applications have a wide choice of support options.

False. If a company stops supporting its proprietary program, I won't be able to get support from anyone unless I switch to a different application. Companies announcing a program's end of life rarely if ever announce a new official supplier of support for that program, and any unofficial supplier commits copyright infringement.

Both your statements are equally true of commercial software.

True, because commercial free software exists. But just in case by "commercial" you meant "proprietary", I'll answer those:

With proprietary software, you choose on whom to depend.

With free software, I can choose from depending on one supplier of a program to depending on another supplier of the same program, with switching costs far less than the cost to switch from one program to another.

With proprietary software, companies compete for you to depend on them. If they stop, you can switch to another company offering support for the product. The more popular proprietary applications have a wide choice of support options.

False. If a company stops supporting its proprietary program, I won't be able to get support from anyone unless I switch to a different application. Companies announcing a program's end of life rarely if ever announce a new official supplier of support for that program, and any unofficial supplier commits copyright infringement.

If you live in the US, it's better to have a friend who lives in a civilized country do your DRM stripping for you.

Right to Read

Did someone say Hurd?

FSF also has a contract regarding what they can and cannot do. http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright/assign.changes.manual

P.E.R.L.

I just read the GPLV3 and don't find a clear statement that you must be able to run the modified source code on the same system upon which the modified object code has been received. You must get source, yes. Must execute, I don't see.

It's there, in section 6:

“Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

Second, doesn't the GPL specifically deny any warrantee of any kind, even for "usability and fitness of purpose" or whatever, to anyone who modifies the code? If you modify the code and try to install it and it does not run, doesn't the GPL specifically release the provider from ANY requirement to support the modified code? Doesn't that mean "if you change it and it doesn't run, tough luck?"

Not quite. That disclaimer is saying "if the code doesn't perform in the way you want, you can't hold us responsible", and it applies whether you modify the code or not. There's a big difference between being able to run the code and it not working, and it not running at all. In the first case, if it doesn't work as I like, I can fix it. In the second case, I can't, and this is exactly what the GPL is designed to prevent.

I would be very scared of any code that says anything other than that last bit. I write code and send it off to other people, and routinely they are unable to get the unmodified code to work properly. The interface to something has changed, the database they are using is just a tiny bit different. So if GPLV3 says I must distribute anything I modify and MUST SUPPORT other people getting it to run, whether or not they changed anything, that's just too much of an exposure to accept. Yes, I know, if it is true, don't use GPLV3 code. But is it true?

No, it's not true. You don't have to guarantee that the code will work, in the sense of being free from bugs, but if you're distributing someone else's GPLv3 code, then you do have to guarantee that they can at least compile and run it... once it's running, it's up to them whether it works or not.

Now, I understand that not providing the modified source is a violation, but does GPLV3 really make not being able to run code on a specific device a violation, too?

If you sold the device with the GPLv3 code running on it, and won't let other people do the same with their modified versions, then yes.

It is free as in freedom. The question is who is the freedom for. You're looking at it from the wrong point of view.

The GPL attempts to ensure the freedom of the end-user while BSD gives freedom to the developer. The origin of the GPL stems from frustration over having to deal with (as a user) bugs and lack of features in closed-source code:

"I had already experienced being on the receiving end of a nondisclosure agreement, when someone refused to give me and the MIT AI Lab the source code for the control program for our printer. (The lack of certain features in this program made use of the printer extremely frustrating.) http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html"

By ensuring that users have the right to the source code (GPLv2) and the right to run their own modified source code (GPLv3), the GPL gives freedom to them.

Let me introduce you to wget and curl.

wput don't work with http...

no command line HTTP file transfer clients ever sprang up

Let me introduce you to wget and curl.

on how exactly they were going to remove radioactivity with a shell, and if so, which one ?

Don't get me wrong, I love my streaming media, but ISPs seem to really hate it.

Don't worry, your ISP will start loving it once again when it's "forced" to pay the rightsholder $0.25/GB - while charging you $1/GB - for overages. Don't want MTV^WThe Music Streaming Service or ESPN^WThe Sports Streaming Service with your cable TV^WInternet? Fine, you can have throttled-to-dialup-speeds^WBasic Cable!

From TFA: "The parent whose child wants to watch "Dora the Explorer: Big Sister Dora" over and over and over again doesn't have to own the DVD or even the digital file. Cloud-based ownership and access means that their child can see Dora play big sister at home, on the iPad, in the car, and on mommy's smartphone. They own the movie or, more likely, have an all-you-can eat subscription service, so each viewing costs nothing except the price of Internet access."

Indeed, your ISP is counting on it. Cloud-based ownership and access means that their child can be charged for each viewing, tracked for each viewing, and have customized banner ads sent to each device.

From TFA: "For the majority of consumers, however, they will come to fully trust the cloud and believe in subscription pricing for everything. Ownership will become an anathema as consumers realize they don't want to risk losing content as they switch services, and they tire of finding requisite space on their own local storage for all those digital files. "

The Right To Read is also relevant here. Unless the bits are stored on a device that you control, the content provider can flush them down the memory hole and there isn't going to be a damn thing you can do about it.

(Seriously? "Tire of finding requisite space on their own local storage for all those digital files?" A 1TB drive costs less than $100 today, never mind in 10-15 years. Or is the business model going to be that since everything is "streamed" to dickless workstations, that 640GB oughta be enough for everybody?)

But when almost nobody demands non-locked-down computers, non-locked-down computers might be cost-prohibitive to acquire for those that do demand them. Compare the price of video game consoles vs. PCs in the 1990s, for example. Besides, Richard Stallman back in 1997 imagined one scenario where only "officially licensed and bonded programmers" are eligible for non-locked-down computers. This has already come to pass.

This has not come to pass. Anyone anywhere can buy a PC and run Linux today. And I don't see how it will be possible, except via legislation (which would be insane, even by legislative standards), to prevent some entrepreneur from going to Taiwan and buying up some chips and boards and selling those for the vast array of tinkerers. I don't see how it's even possible to imagine that chips and boards that only cost $50 today will somehow become so difficult to make that they will be hundreds of dollars tomorrow.

In the future, technology becomes cheaper, not more expensive. In ten years, your high-end, noisy, power-hungry i7 desktop becomes outclassed by a $200 battery powered iPod. Even if 99% of computers become iPads, you'll still have people who want a non-locked device. In 30 years, when iPads become $10, you might have to spend $50 for the parts to assemble your own Linux PC.

Already, almost everything has a chip in it. Someone has to program them. In order to program them, in order to design them, in order to emulate them, there will have to be unlocked computers. Governments, NASA scientists, programmers, Boeing designers, hardware makers, FSF members, etc., etc., these people will all require unlocked computers. And some of those people are involved in actually making computers, so they'll be able to make the thing they want. There is no way whatsoever that general purpose computers will ever go away. Even worldwide dictatorship legislation can't ultimately do it.

Non-locked down computers will be available forever.

But when almost nobody demands non-locked-down computers, non-locked-down computers might be cost-prohibitive to acquire for those that do demand them. Compare the price of video game consoles vs. PCs in the 1990s, for example. Besides, Richard Stallman back in 1997 imagined one scenario where only "officially licensed and bonded programmers" are eligible for non-locked-down computers. This has already come to pass.

Emacs is at version 23.3

I realize this is probably an attempt at humor, but it's not funny and a lot people still seem to be confused about the issue. Linux is 20 years old, but GNU is 27 years old. There are complete operating systems based on GNU (and not Linux) as well as those based on Linux with very little or no GNU components. The term GNU/Linux only makes sense when one is talking about an operating system based on both of them, which is by far the most common way to use either one of them.

You need configurability? I'd ditch KDE, GNOME, etc. Use screen. If you can master the terminal you have given yourself almost ultimate configurability. By nature terminal apps are more configurable than GUI apps.

Have to have a GUI (perhaps for web browsing or skype) but want to keep your configurability? Use awesome window manager.

Late last century Stallman predicted as much:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

> ... there was a time when anyone could go to the library and read journal articles, and even books, without having to pay....

Reminds me of C+/-

How did this thread become so crowded with naysayers? Don't you have a Windows machine to re-install or something?

On your way over to Digg, have a look at this.

Another asshat. This thread got a bit crowded with all you astroturfers.

Here's something for you to read. Now piss off.

Geesh! Where did all the fuckers come from? Is it world astroturfing or trolling day or something?

Here's something for you to read. Now go over and play at Digg or Youtube.

Good Bye.

You forgot the link for GnuWebScript.

Sometimes it's hard to make a distinction.

I'm always looking for ways to be supportive of FSF's stances, but they are a puritan organization. As such, they present views that they know won't gain mainstream acceptance but that's ok, since something more reasonable will gain it. And that's where I stand: I don't consider words of FSF to be holy, but I will support a more "secular" view.

Same here. It's unreasonable to consider an offering "libre" to be truly possible without being fully "unpaid". Not because they are linguistically indistinct concepts, but because they are not to be expected. Licensing schemes, as they exist today for end users, typically allow software that costs thousands to develop (if not monetary, then in food) to be available for lower prices. "Splitting the cost."

Software needs funding before it exists. It's unreasonable to offer people a "donation jar" to fund software that doesn't exist yet and is unproven. Rare examples of success are not always truly success. Most software is funded a-priori in good faith that somehow one can pay it back. How? By selling a-posteriori. Selling software that must be freely copyable by the recipient is possible, and explicitly supported by FSF, this is rarely feasible nowadays if developing software is your primary work in life. This is because you will rarely have the success of Blender in order to sell other merchandise. A lot of work done under free software platforms is done by volunteers, but a lot of highest quality work is done by companies that have other means of earning money. It's really hard to get quality software written fast when it's not your primary thing in life and with free software, it's hard to make it a primary thing. And if you can't think of writing free software as of a profession because you don't have the financial backing to write free software, FSF bluntly says you shouldn't think of it as your profession. I can't dig it out right now, but it's either somewhere on FSF's site, on GNU site, or on Stallman.org.

It's easy to pretend "libre" isn't followed by "unpaid". It's also easy to see that it's just a pretense. Let's hope that FSF's list of high priority projects does prove me wrong, that you indeed can stick out a donation jar and expect the money to flow a-priori. Because then I will indeed dedicate myself to working on tons of free software projects that I've either started already, or just wanted to work on. I want to work on a good blogging tool for GNU/Linux and Mac. Can I get a-priori funding for that? Or is it easier to dismiss pride and ideals and just sell on the Mac App Store, not opening the source since something like this might happen?

I was going to be all snarky about some blog post probably not being the voice of FSF, but then, http://www.gnu.org/people/speakers.html and he's on there.

So I guess I disagree with the FSF, and not just him!

Some time shortly before Wikipedia sprang into existence Richard Stallman proposed a free universal encyclopedia much like what Wikipedia became. Except, Stallman thought things through a bit more. His proposal to address reliability was to have organizations 'endorse' articles. An article would be much more trustworthy once a number of reputable organizations have put their stamp of approval on it. If someone modified an article, the modified version would need a new endorsement.

I agree with you on the FSF in terms of them being a good organization. I contribute for over a decade to the EFF and am friendly with Kathy Hargraves who used to be an officer with FSF. I wasn't being too critical of their editorial, I was indicating that on matters of fact regarding how Apple works they are simply incorrect, oversimplifying too much. Statements like, "iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on everyone's phones" is simply not true.

The problem is when you combine aggressive rhetoric with factual error that really creates a severe credibility gap.

In terms of legislation in the US and its pro corporate anti-consumer bent. I'm pretty appalled. Copyright extensions is my #1 hobby horse but the telecommunications act of 1996 was a shattering moment in terms of faith in the government. I'm no fan of the vagary of the DMCA. So again nothing to argue there.

As far as things getting worse. During my lifetime, (born '69) thing in terms of censorship have collapsed. Services like http://www.clearplay.com/ , are very useful since they are setting precedents about the right to edit your own version of content, i.e. that everyone who owns a copy of a work has the "right to patch the copyrighted content" of that work and a limited right to redistribute. So I disagree with the general theory that things are getting worse, I think they are getting better. But yes there is movement in both directions. For example in the 1980s most employees that had a desktop system had dumb terminals, and far less freedom on their desktop than they do on a Windows machine without admin rights. The mass casette tape usage changed music freedom. The VCR and movie rental has done wonders for free video. Large hard drives have created a new world of movie freedoms.

As far as Apple and the capability for abuse. I agree, PCs used to be very low security. Security is going way up. In all fairness though the demand for security is being caused by criminals not corporations. Spammers, virus people, credit card thieves are the ones creating this problem. Then you add on corporate IT desks that want to lock down employee systems, and media producers that want to avoid rampant piracy. But ultimately it was spam that killed open protocols like SMTP relay and Usenet not corporate greed. And I also remember reading about Stallman's The right to read where he was talking about the dangers in 1997, and I think he's a great guy for pointing out the potential for abuse.

I see the technology companies as, on balance, doing their best to navigate a very tricky situation of individual freedom, protecting copyright and creating manageability. And I know in taking that rather optimistic perspective I'm being a bit pollyanish relative to the FSF. And there are two main reasons I don't make much heavier use of Kindle:

a) The price is way too high for most books
b) I see books as a long term buy and DRM schemes rarely last a decade.

Really the only people who would have a solid reason to dislike the GPL are those with a strong desire to use someone else's work without ever having to contribute anything in return.

Or anyone writing open source code that wants to use both a GPL library and a library with an incompatible open source licence. Eg, you cannot combine GPLv2 code with GPLv3 code, and there are many more incompatible open source licences.

Check this one out:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#LAMP

The trolls don't even have to come up with their own parody material.

this article used two words wrongly: Hacker and PC - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Hacker - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#PC

The widespread abuse of the term "PC" annoys me to no end as well. No major dictionary defines it as a personal computer that runs Microsoft Windows.
iMacs are PCs. Lenovo laptops are PCs. My x86 desktop running Linux is a PC.

"A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computer operator."

Regarding "hackers"... That battle has been lost already, in my humble opinion.

this article used two words wrongly: Hacker and PC - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Hacker - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#PC

The widespread abuse of the term "PC" annoys me to no end as well. No major dictionary defines it as a personal computer that runs Microsoft Windows.
iMacs are PCs. Lenovo laptops are PCs. My x86 desktop running Linux is a PC.

"A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computer operator."

Regarding "hackers"... That battle has been lost already, in my humble opinion.

To all the people spouting off about "choice" and "force" and all that other nonsense, from what GNU has to say about proprietary software (emphasis mine):

The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program. Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program. ...
We don't insist that users of GNU, or contributors to GNU, have to live by this rule. It is a rule we made for ourselves. But we hope you will follow it too, for your freedom's sake.

They don't promote distros that offer, support, or promote non-free software. However, there's nothing in any of GNU's philosophy articles that mentions anything about force or limiting choices.

In fact, I have Skype on my Trisquel 4.5 install right now!