On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:51:47 +0200 al3xu5 / dotcommon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Il giorno mercoledì 23/05/2012 14:47:00 CEST > Robert Martinez <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > > I think there should be a campaign and I'm curious what you think. > > It should be about making ethical choices transparent. > > I can not understand how "trasparent" could be something applicable > to "ethical choices"... > > > Most non-technical users cannot see or understand what software > > freedom is. All they eventually get is a license name and/or > > version, some "open foo" buzzwords and maybe the hint that it is > > free software. They are unable to recognize in how far their choice > > actually connects to the idea of free software. > > In order to help people make right choices the free software > > community should use its authority and start labeling what is > > considered free software. > > I totally disagree. > > Such an approach is declaredly paternalistic and authoritary, which > could not be a good way to spread neither "ethical choices" nor > freedom. > > More, understanding and awareness are never things you can achieve > with drastic simplifications or shortcuts of any kind. Things need to > be discussed directly with people and thoroughly... > > The idea that a label can serve to make people's choices more ethical > and conscious or to spread freedom is simply wrong, and can only lead > to the opposite result... the same way clicking the FB's 'I like' > button is not enough to make us free to choose, and does not make us > aware of anything or make people friends... The label should not be a tool to introduce new users to free software. It should be a tool to tell people who know about free software if a program is free or not. Introducing free software to new users should be done the way you describe. > > Regards
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
