So, how is this different than allowing ads in the student newspaper...or in a yearbook...they all have an educational purpose.

I think that the primary objection to ads on quizzes and tests is that they distract the test taker. Glancing at an ad might cost a student 5 seconds to a minute, and that time could be better used to finish a test.

Of course, there are ways to solve the "Liberal Paradox". One way, is to respect each others seemingly contrary philosophies. By respecting people's freedom to install both free and non-free software, both can flourish.

Free software and proprietary software can and do exist at the same time.

My problem is that some free software advocates don't respect my right to run proprietary software.

I don't think that the GPL 4.0 should read "if you run any non-free software on this system, whether you distribute it or not, you are in violation of the GPL. In fact, if you sell any software, you may not use any GPL software."

There must be compromise. It should not be some sort of inchoate offense to supply or conspire to give or sell non-free software to GPL users. It should not be a violation of the GPL to help others install proprietary software.

Interestingly enough, your example illustrates my point: the US Constitution does NOT outlaw all slavery. It preserves indentured servitude for felons.

The US Constitution also protects political speech absolutely, but commercial speech is less protected, allowing false statements by companies to be prosecuted under consumer protection statutes.

Similarly, the GPL should NOT outlaw all proprietary software and hardware. It should preserve freedom, but allow users to freely install the software they want to install, and to use any computer for any purpose.

I propose two new software freedoms:

-2: The Freedom to run any hardware, for any purpose

-1: The Freedom to run proprietary software, to run any hardware.

I don't understand why people don't want others have the freedom to install proprietary software on Linux system. I use both Linux and Windows. I enjoy running the latest and greatest games with the fastest video and sound cards.

I want robust support from NVIDIA and Creative. If Stallman had his way, there would be a huge disincentive to have working drivers. I require that my computer works with the hardware I bought for it.

I'm sick and tired of misguided free software enthusiasts applying free software principals to hardware. Yes, I think that as an individual tinkerer I should have the freedom to study and hack hardware that he owns, but hardware is not software. Hardware is a tangible thing. The structure of our laws protect tangible things more fiercely than ephemeral things, like software and ideas.

One of the original purpose of Free Software was to liberate hardware from the limitations of its software by protecting the freedom of the user.

However, Stallman's philosophy that "A free system distribution must not assist users in obtaining any nonfree information for practical use, or encourage them to do so" is ridiculous. Why should this be so? How does this promote freedom?

This is my computer, and it is my choice.

Stallman can't see the forest from the trees.

From http://psr.tumblr.com/post/57576525/two-new-software-freedoms