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

[MENGUAL Jean-Philippe]

Hi all,

I only wanted to mention 3 points in this very interesting and 
intelligent debate (thanks Richard, to particisate to it):
1. Richard, what do you mean when you say that "accessibility is a 
functionality"? As I understand the idea, it is not. Indeed, a 
functionality, in any program, can exist or not. It brings to the user a 
function or not. It enables someone to do some task or not. Indeed: it 
would be mad to say that a software is free only if it has some 
functionality. However, accessibility, if missing, prevents fully some 
users to use the software. And, maybe you don't know, but some blind 
people or other disabled people can program. How can we say: if the 
functionality misses, program it, if everything in the program is not 
accessible. If I cannot run Evolution (Gnome), I am unable to debug, 
use, study and modify it. Why? Because I have not all my physical 
potential. Does it seem ethical for you? We do not talk about a 
functionality here, but something which leads the user to run 
effectively, usefully, or not, a program.
2. If we follow the current approach, it implies 2 things. First, 
paradoxically, a user is more free with a "privator" program than with a 
free software? Why? Because a proprietary software can help him to do 
many things impossible for him physically (buying food, integrating in 
society paying tax alone without assistance, working as everybody, 
etc.). If a free software is not accessible, and if he doesn't want to 
use proprietary software, the user is less socially-integrated. In 
France, when State choosed LibreOffice, excellent thing for free 
software, several blind workers became unable to work because the suite 
is inaccessible. When we see such human consequences, beyond the 
everyone's capability, can we say that a program is free if its users 
are less socially free? It is a crucial ethical question, in my opinion, 
and I would like to read your point about it.
3. You are afraid, when you hear "Freedom 0 could ship accessibility", 
that no software could be free and for a long time, given that it is too 
hard for devs to code accessible, and because fre assistive technologies 
do not exist or are not good enough. I would like you to know 2 things:
a) When we promote a11y for devs, we do not tell them "know all 
disabilities and make your software accessible". We explain rather that, 
if a program is developped properly, it can present all info needed by 
accessibility pipe (at-spi for example), then any assistive technology, 
to do its work. For instance: link widgets to labels instead of putting 
all widgets on a side; all labels on the other side. Or: imagine always 
an alternative to interact with your program: mouse AND keyboard, to be 
sure everybody can use it. Same thing for layout matter. And that, it is 
an approach of developping, possible for everybody sensitive to 
consequences of his work on the software and his users-target. In other 
words: if someone does a free software to participate to social 
community, collective effort, its dev is good for society if it doesn't 
exclude anyone, i.e. is it enables other assistive techno to work and to 
interact with his program.
b) Every dev don't have to work for assistive technologies, developped 
by people interested in a given disability.
So this approach combines "sensibilisation" and dialog with devs, wish 
improving the quality of free software, in order to maximize the ethical 
dimension of the freedom 0. Because without this, Freedom 0 can kick off 
users from society, and it is not great. And it is a pain when I see a 
impaired people more free, more socially-good, through Iphone than a 
GNU/Linux or GNU/Hurd system. Finally, if Freedom 0 excludes some 
people, only due to physical reasons, it is hard to say all users should 
be equal, free and brothers in front of software: everybody is equal, 
except if you are not lucky and are without hands or only can use the 
mouse; free to run a software, but if you cannot do anything with it, it 
is a pitty; and we do this for brotherhood in society, but some people 
are less brothers than others.

I'm interested to know your feeling about all this thoughts. Anyway, I 
am happy to read you saying that you support accessibility and we 
continue supporting FSF. We only want to give a stronger message, with 
more consequences, to maximize absolutely the social project of free 
software in a world where computing can really help living as everybody 
despite a disability. And personally speaking, when you say that the 
campaign could be better saying "be accessible to enjoy Freedom 0", it 
is really not far from what we say. But instead of saying only this, we 
explain why through all consequences of a non accessible free software 
on the real user freedom. When you take example of a poor man, he has 
capability to change the situation or to choose to stay poor. For an 
impaired and disable people, this choice does not exist.


Sincerely,


Le 19/07/2014 01:07, Richard Stallman a écrit :
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>      Well, I take  freedom  in its the widest meaning: the ability to do what
>      one want without hurting others freedom. So then it *includes* technical
>      freedom (the capacity), social freedom (the liberty) and psychological
>      freedom (the will)
>
> That definition of freedom is misguided because it stretches the word
> to include everything that is good or bad for a person.  That destroys
> the distinction between freedom and practical opportunity.
>
> Using your definition of freedom, everyone in 1900 had much less
> freedom that we do.  And we have less freedom than a billionaire has.
> With your definition, a poor man cannot be free.  But there are poor
> men who disagree with you.
>
> This is not just an interesting philosophical question.  You are
> discarding the basis of the political idea of human rights.
>
> It is not possible to give everyone the same abilities, and giving
> everyone the same wealth is more radical than Chairman Mao.  It is
> possible to give everyone the same freedom, because wealth and
> abilities are something totally distinct from freedom.  If we were
> to accept your concept, we would lose any possibility of insisting
> on legal equality for people.
>
> You may not intend to oppose the principle of equal rights, but that
> is where your philosophy leads.  Since we stand by that principle,
> we will have to defend it from your threat.  We will have to argue
> against your philosophy.


--

Jean-Philippe MENGUAL

accelibreinfo, votre partenaire en informatique adaptée aux déficients visuels

Mail: address@hidden

Site Web: http://www.accelibreinfo.eu