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

[Garreau\, Alexandre]

On 2014-07-24 at 06:21, Quiliro Ordóñez Baca wrote:
> This whole thing has opened my eyes about accessibility. Thank you very
> much.

Great \o/

> I do not think it should be necessary or convenient to use or change the
> FSF term coined in order to advance the use of accessibility.

Neither we do. Integrate accessibility into the free software definition
would destroy all its meaning. What we say is that it would be a good
thing to have the FSF promote our goal of “a free and accessible digital
world” and therefore our organization, or to have accessibility
integrated into GNU Coding Standards.

As I said, when we say “freedom 0”, we don’t say “accessibility is part
of freedom 0” but “In free software movement, social freedom (rights,
what rms just call ‘freedom’) to use is important, but let’s also
consider the importance of technical freedom (capacity, what rms call
just ‘functionality’)”, we just used to promote what is the
transposition of “freedom 0” from the level of *rights* to the level of
*ability*. We don’t change nor extend its definition though.

> I think that it might be true that not making a program accessible
> would diminish the freedom a user has in practice (but not in rights).

Waoh, you said it really well ! I should have said that this way from
the beginning :D

> But appropriating the term "freedom to use" or "freedom 0" would
> lessen the importance and the strength of its battle.

I don’t think so. I think linking the battle for “freedom in practice”
and “freedom in rights” would make both stronger, because these two type
of “freedom” cover almost (almost) all what a human need to.

> I would not want to support that. I would like to support the equal
> importance of both: software freedom and software accessibility.

And it’s what we do. And we not only support their importance but also
the links they have: the fight for being able and have the right to do
what we want.

> I would like a way to distinguish each other or to mix them without
> one denying the other in order strengthen both. Is it possible to
> provide this?

Yes, it’s what we do. Promoting both, and, using the “freedom” word in
its large meaning, we “mix” them making a discursive *link* between, so
we try to strenghten both. It’s what I tried to explain from some mails
^^

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature