20 years ago the FSF had some very forward-looking ideas. Now we have the ornery opinion of old men - it was good enough for us two decades ago, it's good enough for you now.
The point of free as in speech and not free as in beer is that the choice you make does not need to be right or wrong by the standards of other humans. Holding back technology because it's not available on "your" platform is just as monopolistic as any corporate entity they have butted heads with.
The point of free as in speech and not free as in beer is that the choice you make does not need to be right or wrong by the standards of other humans.
No, it may be yours, but I'm pretty sure that was never the FSF's point. Not now, and not 20 years ago.
Holding back technology because it's not available on "your" platform is just as monopolistic as any corporate entity they have butted heads with.
- It's not "their" platform, it's free platforms.
- The tech is still available, it just won't be included in their official release. Other MacOS ports are free to use it.
It's not the FSF's point to have freedom of ideas? Then please explain what it's point is. You disagreed but haven't explained why.
If it's not "their" platform then how is it available elsewhere? If other distributors have access and can make it available then it is very much a GNU political standard and not a side effect the technology.
How are those platforms free if existing features have been removed due to politics? I stand by my point, 20 years ago the FSF was a foundation that wanted to make technology available to all - without having to worry about IP ownership. They have removed a feature that was technically sound due to it's status as a commercial work. How am I free to use this if I can only do so in designated zones?
It's not the FSF's point to have freedom of ideas?
Freedom of ideas is supposed to be a given in a free society. The FSF certainly supports it, but they weren't created for the purpose of promoting it.
In any case, your initial statement was that "the choice you make does not need to be right or wrong by the standards of other humans", which is actually the opposite of the FSF's position, which is that some choices (like developing, distributing or even promoting proprietary software) are unethical and should be opposed. That's the definition of making a standard and holding other humans to it.
If other distributors have access and can make it available then it is very much a GNU political standard and not a side effect the technology.
I don't disagree. It's still not their platform, it's all platforms they consider ethical.
How are those platforms free if existing features have been removed due to politics? I stand by my point, 20 years ago the FSF was a foundation that wanted to make technology available to all - without having to worry about IP ownership. They have removed a feature that was technically sound due to it's status as a commercial work. How am I free to use this if I can only do so in designated zones?
I completely disagree with your portrayal of the FSF of 20 years ago. The whole point of the creation of the GPL, instead of using the existing permissive licenses, was to legally enforce the position that the Freedom of the software, not its technical superiority, is the fundamental goal. This is a markedly political position, and one which prevented the creation of many features. Being "technically sound" was never enough to be considered good software by the GNU project.
Your characterization of the concept of freedom is profoundly flawed. You are FREE to reinstate this feature and equally FREE to share the results of your labors with your million closest friends. You are not ENTITLED to tell other people what they ought to work on and what they ought to ship nor are they somehow betraying the idea of freedom by making your life slightly less convenient.
The diff is 6 lines (2 lines of code) and the source is there, you can fork it. Which is more than can be said for Intel (intentionally crippling icc on non-intel chips), Microsoft (UEFI), Apple (their entire OS), or most other companies products. Even after this the FSF is still morally better than their opponents.
The point of free as in speech and not free as in beer is that the choice you make does not need to be right or wrong by the standards of other humans. Holding back technology because it's not available on "your" platform is just as monopolistic as any corporate entity they have butted heads with.