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
