> Actually, why is that so? (Serious question, perhaps there is
some
> information about GitHub policies that I am lacking.)
Github is proprietary software, thus unethical, but Joshua thought
"ruinous compromise" zinger more likely to convince and/or more
entertaining to read and/or write. Wild guess.
Yeah more fun/entertaining. Alludes to
<
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html>. I especially like the
following parts of that essay:
At the level of ideas, ruinous compromises are those that reinforce
the premises we seek to change. Our goal is a world in which software users are free, but
as yet most computer users do not even recognize freedom as an issue. They have taken up
“consumer” values, which means they judge any program only on practical characteristics
such as price and convenience.
...
At the level of ideas, ruinous compromises are those that reinforce
the premises we seek to change. Our goal is a world in which software users are free, but
as yet most computer users do not even recognize freedom as an issue. They have taken up
“consumer” values, which means they judge any program only on practical characteristics
such as price and convenience.
...
A ruinous compromise is not just a bad influence on others. It can
distort your own values, too, through cognitive dissonance. If you have certain values,
but your actions imply other, conflicting values, you are likely to change your values or
your actions so as to resolve the contradiction. Thus, projects that argue only from
practical advantages, or direct people toward some nonfree software, nearly always shy
away from even suggesting that nonfree software is unethical. For their participants, as
well as for the public, they reinforce consumer values. We must reject these compromises
if we wish to keep our values straight.
A road that lets you go faster is no improvement if it leads to the wrong place.
Compromise is essential to achieve an ambitious goal, but beware of compromises that lead
away from the goal.