Re: [Audio-video] [Liberté 0] Re: http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/ghm2013/Samuel_Thibault_Jean-Philippe_Mengual-Freedom_0_for_everybody_really_.text

[Armony ALTINIER]

On 24 juillet 2014 02:37:09 HAEC, Luca Saiu <address@hidden> wrote:
>On 2014-07-24 at 00:30, Armony ALTINIER wrote:
>
>> not sharing your limited definition doesn't make
>> others' reasoning invalid.
>
>Indeed, it doesn't necessarily [1].  However the mere existence of a
>second incompatible definition is an obstacle to clear expression.
>
>Even if I never use the US convention for writing dates, the sole fact
>that it exists makes me think twice before writing "10/05/2014" to mean
>May 10th; this in practice makes the European convention less useful,
>even if it's better designed than the US's, and drives me to prefer the
>less traditional Asian or "hacker" notation "2014-05-10".
>
>Since in our field wording is a way to state one's allegiance, I'll use
>the phrase "freedom #0" in the GNU/FSF sense.  But now I'll feel forced
>to also add explicit references and disclaimers to avoid confusion.
>This confusion harms you as well, just as the date notation ambiguity
>is
>an irritation to people in the US as well.

The date notation is really a good example. Different approaches that coexist 
and do *not* hurt anybody. It may be an irritation for some people in the US, 
but if simplicity means uniformity, the absence of diversity is more a problem 
than the risk of confusion. 

>I really don't understand your stubbornness.

We already added a "subtitle" - "le numérique libre et accessible" and will 
make a disclaimer to not confuse people. And, for the fifth time?, we offer you 
to re-read this disclaimer to make sure it is clear enough. You never answer to 
that offer. Stubborn you said?

We won't connect accessibility and the fsf free software definition, but still 
connect accessibility and freedom and human rights. Because it is our identity. 

>You are advocating for a subset of what we call free software, the
>subset which we call free *and* is also accessible.

I agree with this definition. There are free softwares that make valid  people 
people free, and accessible free softwares that make everybody free. 

>  Very good: you
>could say "free accessible software",

Digital world free and accessible, it is already our subtitle. 

> or maybe invent a new catchy word
>for the concept.  Why do you need to label some software which is free
>in the GNU sense as non-free in the Armony sense?  

I didn't say it was non free, I said only an accessible free software liberate 
everybody regardless one's ability. 

> What good does this
>do?

It makes people that are engaged to fight for freedom aware of accessibility 
and aware of their power of action to liberate more people. And actually, it 
works pretty well.

>> Why do you deny us the right to have a complementary definiton?
>
>I don't see anybody trying to censor you.  In fact we're having this
>conversation on a public GNU mailing list.
>
>Amicalement (for real),

Amicalement, for real too ;-)
Armony 
>
>[1] I also have other problems with your definition, and with the UN
>    definition quoted by Samuel.  Is it possible to completely satisfy?
>    And what does it entail, exactly?  "Necessary", "appropriate",
>    "disproportionate" and "undue" are all vague terms, maybe by
>    necessity.  But I feel uneasy when I have to satisfy a set of
>   constraints which is so open to subjective interpretation.  Even the
>    term "equal", despite its long history of use, has been bent in
>    different ways by jurisprudence throughout the years.  I don't like
>    moving goalposts.

-- 
Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.