On 02/28/2016 01:09 PM, Michael Lamb wrote: >> This is a great idea and I think we should start organizing to make it >> reality. > > Okay, here's an initial proposal just to get the ball rolling: > [...]
Weird enough, a while ago I started to write a free book called "Libre software apologetics" (inspired by C.S. Lewis) which had the exact same intent! It used a conversational style (one-sentence responses), but I scrapped it since I tried some of my arguments on people and they didn't work (see the previous thread for reference). I also didn't want to write something that could be misinterpreted as edgy, judgemental or condescending, while my intention was to use arguments based on reason and information exclusively. Now, I am no writer and I really didn't plan to ever talk about it, but since the cat is out of the bag, I think the fact that we've had a similar idea is very meaningful, and I think using _reason_ and _information_ should still be the way to go about doing this in a way that won't just annoy people and/or cause them to perpetuate their labelling of free software activists as zealots and cultists. So, if you ask me, it's an idea worth pursuing. I think we should work on making it a short pamphlet under a free license (in multiple languages, if possible) and make sure all free software activists can download a copy (and contribute to it) easily. I also think a person from the other side (someone who doesn't mind and/or supports proprietary software) should be involved in its writing. Their arguments should be listened to and addressed, one by one. It's no good to have one-side conversations, and they are the target audience anyway: arguments that can be dismissed pretty easily are useless, and we should make sure our arguments have no blind spots and/or fallacies.
