We don't really need to go far as to rely on beliefs of "incarnation" or "machine revolution". I personally accept everybody's beliefs on these matters, don't worry. However, not everyone believe in the same things, although accepting the opinions.
It's worth noting that, we don't really need to make up analogies to explain our movement's goals and essential freedoms that we advocate for. We just have to think on how to apply the essential freedoms of functional/practical data to each case/field of knowledge (when using/facing with functional/practical data, of course). Don't worry if if people don't understand it at first, just keep trying, don't give up. Also, it helps if you provide alternative explanations and examples to the same people. Some people learn by hearing, others by seeing, and others by doing/experiencing. So far I have talked with almost 100 people in the college where I study, about the **basics** of our movement. However, as far as I know, only five people got the idea right (including the fact that it's not gratis, it's not always "open", it's not **just/only** a matter of "transparency", and like many other human creations, can have bugs or failures, that can be fixed due to the presence of the essential freedoms). They are not activists, and **might not** be free/libre software users right now (that preferably use it for the true values, not for the sake of convenience), but I at least have made them aware. Also, comparing non-free/libre software usage with slavery is risky also, and reminds me of a lengthy discussion on the English sub-forum of the Trisquel project. Basically, the flaw of this comparison is that: slavery has no opt-out possibility, while non-free/libre software usage generally has that possibility, be it in hardware level, or in software level.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
