18

http://trombonechamp.wordpress.com

Please don’t take this post the wrong way just because of the title. I love the FSF. However, based on my observations, it has made some major mistakes that have ended up leading fewer people to freedom. Allow me to elaborate.

Full story »
trombonechamp's picture
Created by trombonechamp 5 years 51 weeks ago – Made popular 5 years 51 weeks ago
Category: Philosophy   Tags:
aboutblank's picture

aboutblank

5 years 50 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago

1

I think the FSF will do

I think the FSF will do whatever it wants to do. Right now, I think the FSF's role in the free software movement is to educate and promote software freedom, sponsor the GNU project, and campaign against intentionally defective products (Defective by Design) and destructive software systems (Bad Vista).

Your ideas have merit; it would undoubtedly strengthen our community when done properly. I also think that the FSF isn't interested in actively maintaining a forum for members of the free software community outside of those participating in the GNU project.

The things specified are things easily handled by the members of the community; it is up to us to create our own forums to discuss software liberty and properly welcome and guide new converts. I'd recommend the Ubuntu forums community if there wasn't a culture of promoting proprietary software when it is convenient to do so.

marco's picture

marco

5 years 50 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago

-1

Stallman and the FSF are not encouraging people

This is the same comment I've just attached to the original story:

“The FSF has evaluated most of the reasons that encourage people switch to Free Software, and has campaigned accordingly.”

No. Stallman and the FSF have elaborated most of the reasons that encourage software DEVELOPERS (actual or potential, that is individuals who either already develop software or DO have the time and skills to contribute to it) to switch, not PEOPLE. Confusing “people” with software developers is a very snob and dangerous attitude.
See the Free Software manifesto for the rest of us and the Seven things we’re tired of hearing from software hackers

“They’re forgetting something, though. The social aspect”

Precisely. See how to help people who couldn’t care less to become FOSS supporters, not users, or how to help everybody love FOSS

I'll just add a reply to this:

"it is up to us to create our own forums to discuss software liberty and properly welcome and guide new converts."

This is just what I hope the forums at Digifreedom.net to become. The people we need to convert are those who wouldn't come here or to the FSF.
-----
Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you.

http://digifreedom.net

aboutblank's picture

aboutblank

5 years 50 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago

1

I think you are confused

I think you, Marco, are confused about the issues surrounding freedom 1.

It is truth to say that many users in the free software community fail to value their right to freedom 1; these people misunderstand their ability to indirectly practise freedom 1.

It is a misconception to believe that non-programmers must possess programming skill to practise freedom 1. Everybody can get programming assistance by getting help from skilled programmers.

I have written more about this in the following link. http://www.fsdaily.com/users-should-value-freedom-1

edit: I made this post a bit clearer for marco. I'm sorry it wasn't clear enough before.

marco's picture

marco

5 years 50 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago

0

"many users in the free

"many users in the free software community fail to value their right to freedom 1; these people misunderstand their ability to indirectly practise freedom 1. It is a misconception to believe that non-programmers must possess programming skill to practise freedom 1. Non-programmers can get programming assistance from skilled programmers."

When I wrote (quoting from memory) "direct or potential DEVELOPERS" I also had in mind the people you refer here. It is probably my fault for not making it clearer. This said, I already know very well this point, thanks, this is the standard RMS/FSF press package.

My take on this is already published in the first two links I gave as reference in my first comment. Have you actually read them? If yes, please quote directly from those pages the points you disagree with.

Of course there are "many users [who] misunderstand their ability to indirectly practice freedom 1": my point is just that the standard RMS/FSF talk and attitude will never work with them. It's not wrong, it's just not applicable.

I have already explained at great length all this in (at least):

- the two Digifreedom pages already linked
- the Help everybody love FOSS" article
- all my comments to Can we please stop fighting FUD with FUD?
- Comments to "Why FOSS isn't on activists agenda" at Linux.com

so I will not do it again here. I am always interested to discuss this issue, but please be sure, to save time, to read those links before, as I've already probably answered most of the objections you may make. Then, if you still disagree, by all means let's continue the discussion, but please quote the precise points you disagree with, with source, and let's go with them.

Marco

--
Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you.

http://digifreedom.net

aboutblank's picture

aboutblank

5 years 50 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago

1

I've read both the links. I

I've read both the links. I disagree with the overall message which is this: users don't care about computer programming and so, disregard their right to freedom 1 (the right to help oneself). Users disregard this right because they have been conditioned to expect helplessness and convenience. Users are unfamiliar with the concept that programming code can be tinkered to improve one's software situation. We should teach that it is your responsibility to help yourself when you have freedom.

> my point is just that the standard RMS/FSF talk and attitude will never work with them. It's not wrong, it's just not applicable.
Once again, users have been conditioned to accept subjugation to a software master. The standard RMS/FSF talk doesn't work because they don't understand the issues: the right to freedom 1 and the capability to practise freedom 1. It is up to us to discuss these matters in order to make them understand.

I managed to teach my friends about the standard RMS talk and most of them have zero programming skills; some of them have limited PC operating skills. My friends now understand the massive impact that computer software have over their lives and how important it is to value their right to free software in order to live in freedom. I teach them that the right to live in freedom also comes with the responsibility to help oneself. In most cases, this will mean finding a computer programmer to help with programming tasks. They now know that they cannot live in freedom while accepting proprietary software - they are subject to helplessness and division when they do this.

One more thing, the free software movement is not a software development method. The free software movement is a political movement and ethical framework. We believe that users MUST have the right to practise all four freedoms of free software for ALL the software in their possession.

marco's picture

marco

5 years 50 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago

0

I've read both the links. I

I've read both the links. I disagree with the overall message which is this: users don't care about computer programming and so, disregard their right to freedom 1 (the right to help oneself).

Actually, the rest of your message proves that you agree with the problem description, but disagree with me about causes and remedies. Anyway:

Users disregard this right because they have been conditioned to expect helplessness and convenience.

Many, many computer users today are very intelligent and active people, whose personality is anything but helpless. They want convenience with computers because they do things with them, not TO them. They couldn't care less about software because thinkering with it would be totally irrelevant even if all sw were free.


my point is just that the standard RMS/FSF talk and attitude will never work with them. It's not wrong, it's just not applicable.

Once again, users have been conditioned to accept subjugation to a software master.

or maybe they want what _you_ call subjugation because they DO have much more important things in life than mess with source code.

The standard RMS/FSF talk doesn't work because they don't understand the issues: the right to freedom 1 and the capability to practise freedom 1. It is up to us to teach them these matters.

Who said the contrary? What I say is that in order to do it one needs to stop talking like RMS, because it simply won't work.

I managed to teach my friends about the standard RMS talk and most of them have zero programming skills;

what's their average age?

One more thing, the free software movement is not a software development method. The free software movement is a political movement and ethical framework.

By telling ME this you're just proving you haven't actually read or understood my signature or all the links I provided. How could I have written all that while considering free sw only a development method? Bah. Honestly, you're giving me very little reason to care about your next posts here.

We believe that users MUST have the right to practise all four freedoms of free software for ALL the software in their possession.

I believe the same thing. I just add that in this world and age 90% of human beings will never get it by listening to RMS or anybody else with the same language, arguments, examples and attitude.

Good night.

--
Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you.

http://digifreedom.net

marco's picture

marco

5 years 50 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago

0

who are you talking to?

Me (Marco) or the author of the original post? Who are you quoting when you write between quotes "many users in the free software community fail to value their right to freedom 1"? If you are objecting to something that *I* (Marco) have said, please be clearer.

Marco

--
Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you.

http://digifreedom.net