Re: [libreplanet-discuss] libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 67, Issue 19

[nicolas]

Much thanks for the interesting discussion i personnaly likes your proposal 
GLOS , and I have felt as a libre software activists most if the cases you 
develop in your examples.

Nicolas 

À mar. sept. 22 23:53:03 2015 GMT+0200, Terry a écrit :
> >> The FSF has incredible geniuses who understand code, technologies,
> >> future directions and social implications. Their philosophies are
> >> incredible, however some lack of people skills contributes to remaining
> >> exclusionary through alienating many by not understanding and embracing
> >> people, varying intellects, marketing and rates of comprehensive shifts
> >> to new philosophical adoptions.
> > I'm not clear on precisely what you're referring to and I don't see
> > examples of your point. If you don't like what the FSF says, it would be
> > fine to say that you don't agree with it. But you should point to what
> > specifically you disagree with and explain why. I don't know how many
> > people you are speaking for when you say "many" and I don't see any
> > examples of what your criticizing. What did the FSF say when you tried
> > telling them specifically what messages you didn't like and how you thought
> > they should pose those issues instead? They're hiring a Deputy Director,
> > and I think that job would include plenty of chances to explain software
> > freedom better.
> >
> > I've found the FSF to be forthright and to not suffer fools gladly (which
> > requires a clarity I appreciate). They rightly speak up about their cause,
> > write very clearly, and when people use language that frames an issue in a
> > way they don't agree with their representatives point it out. Richard
> > Stallman's recent Slashdot interview
> > http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/09/09/2252212/interviews-rms-answers-your-questions
> >   
> > has an example of this in the first Q&A -- a response from Stallman where
> > he pointed out what was wrong with framing an issue in terms of
> > "monetization". Stallman's response struck me as a well-stated and entirely
> > fair rebuttal to an attempt to justify bad behavior because it might make
> > more money than earning money ethically. Eben Moglen's talks are
> > consistently excellent. They're packed with detail and they really earn a
> > re-read/re-listen, but they're eminently understandable even for
> > non-technical people I've played them for over the air on community radio
> > (or so the listeners who call me tell me). I went to an FSF gathering some
> > years ago and Moglen's talk alone made the trip worthwhile for my travel
> > companion.
> >
> > I think most people haven't begun to contemplate software freedom not
> > because the message of software freedom was put to them somehow
> > indelicately, but because the message of software freedom hasn't been put
> > to them at all. It's hard to repeat a message as frequently as the
> > billionaire proprietors repeat their ads, or even as frequently as open
> > source supporters say some proprietary software is okay.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > We're constantly told that our proper role in society is to buy something.
> > This immediately circumscribes us as consumers rather than citizens. This
> > means reducing people to accepting choices set out for them (if they can
> > afford it) and never discussing doing what's just, ethical, and beneficial
> > for society such as pointing out systemic corruption (what if all the
> > choices are bad?), inequity (what if some people are too poor to
> > participate even as consumers?). Consumerism is designed to exclude ethical
> > discussion. When I try to behave ethically by purchasing the most ethical
> > option available, I usually face greenwashing or I find I'm outspent by the
> > wealthy who want unethical results. The narrow terms of debate are set up
> > this way on purpose, not by accident, and this makes for a very one-sided
> > way to live.
> >
> > For example, in popular computing my choices come down to two nonfree
> > software distributors and a "choice" of which proprietor's interest to
> > cater to. When viewed from a perspective of software freedom, that's no
> > choice at all. Any differences between the proprietors are overwhelmed by
> > the similarities that one is basically picking who gets to keep me from
> > having software freedom. All of the important questions about software
> > freedom are immediately outside the allowable range of debate when the ends
> > are staked out by proprietors. There's simply no room left for a serious
> > discussion of ethics; other related issues (such as computer security) are
> > off-limits too as one can't have computer security without software freedom.
> >
> > But I know better things are possible because I can look at history.
> > Apparently through hard work and political insistence free software hackers
> > built a better system: there was a time when GNU was not a complete
> > operating system and I had to run GNU programs on a nonfree OS. Now
> > GNU/Linux is a complete self-hosting OS, thanks in part to Linus Torvalds
> > distributing the Linux kernel under a free software license, and the
> > Linux-libre team for distributing a free version of the Linux kernel. I
> > didn't have hardware on which I could run a completely free OS. Now I can
> > buy hardware which runs a free BIOS thanks to all the reverse engineering
> > and work I'm probably not fully aware of. Sure, I have to accept that
> > things take time to develop and I can't use the latest hardware in freedom,
> > but things are demonstrably better now than they were just 20 years ago. I
> > don't want those gains to be lost for me or anyone else who uses a computer.
> >
> > There are, quite literally, life and death issues one can resolve with
> > software freedom (the recent VW emissions fraud discovery, and keeping
> > people safe from spying while they're telling us important details about
> > what's really happening like Snowden did, to name a couple recent
> > examples). Saving lives, preserving privacy & civil liberties, and
> > introducing ethics into people's use of computers strikes me as far too
> > important to grant anyone social permission to dismiss a message because
> > they don't like how it was delivered instead of objecting to what the
> > message said. If the discussion raises questions, by all means, ask! And
> > feel free to state your mind, but expect to justify your statements too.
> 
> I actually thought my post was clear that I absolutely do like what the 
> FSF says. I also think they (as well as myself and others) sometimes 
> have trouble clearly getting the messages across to the average person. 
> Also I can be a giant idiot and write "FSF" when I really meant to type 
> Free Software advocates which is not exclusive to the Free Software 
> Foundation. You say they don't suffer fools lightly and I admit I am a 
> fool, but I am a fool who understands there is power in numbers and a 
> battle for computing freedom going on. I wish to grow our membership 
> large enough that there is a viable market for inexpensive Gnu/Linux 
> laptops and Free (as in freedom) phones and tablets. To do that we need 
> to be able to engage not lose the average person. While it is true the 
> billionaires have massive marketing machines we need to present our 
> message in a marketable way if it is to be heard and rebroadcast by 
> those trained throughout their lifetimes to hear and respond to 
> marketing propaganda.
> 
> Example One:
> The choice of the term "Free Software", every newbie seems to interpret 
> it as no charge. And it's no wonder, if I go to the grocery store the 
> word free will be visible at least a dozen times in a context related to 
> price. The cost association to that word has happened my whole life with 
> hundreds of visits to stores. The same is true for most people living in 
> the developed English speaking world. The chosen term could instead be 
> something unique and memorable like "4Freedoms Software", that more 
> accurately describe the subject. Open source could also be called 
> "1Freedom Software" because thats all you get, likewise proprietary 
> software could be accurately called "0Freedom Software" (Zero Freedom 
> Software).
> 
> Example Two:
> Gnu/Linux System, I know several Free Software users and advocates who 
> will never use the terminology because of the awkwardness of it. We need 
> something simpler, more marketable if we actually want widespread use 
> adoption of the terminology. A quick off the cuff suggestion GLOS (Gnu 
> Linux Operating System).
> 
> Example Three:
> I tried to play one of the videos of Richard Stallman for someone, he 
> started by explaining the four software freedoms. When the list started 
> with zero, The whole focus and message was lost on a mundane unnecessary 
> detail. As a computer guy I think it's cool that the list starts with 
> zero especially since it reflects the latter addition of the rule. The 
> reality though is trying to introduce someone to important concepts, the 
> divide by zero error in the brain when the list begins can (and did) 
> abruptly exit and end everything.
> 
> Example Four:
> Once before I gave feedback in this list related to one of the four 
> freedoms, specifically open source. that post received negative feedback 
> because open source alone isn't Free Software. The comment I provided 
> was never meant as an all encompassing answer. I omitted the other 
> freedoms not because they are unimportant, I just couldn't articulate 
> the specific relevance well enough so I gave the best feedback I could, 
> relying on others to make the other relevant points. My point here is 
> someone who doesn't understand us might have taken personal offense.
> 
> Example Zero:  ;)
> My previous message was a reply regarding effective pedagogical 
> techniques vs counterproductive ones, specifically related to handling 
> students who aren't immediately all in on our ideals. Which will be a 
> significant number. Forcing them to choose a side will usually end with 
> a choice based on rebelliousness. It is human nature and more so for youth.
> 
> My suggested new terms above are only suggestions to get the discussion 
> rolling about effective terminology that is more prone to public 
> embracement and adoption, almost certainly someone else out there has 
> ideas that are much better. Finally maybe this isn't the appropriate forum.
> 
> Terry
> 
> 
>

-- 
Envoyé depuis mon Jolla