Re: Is lack of software freedom a valid reason for refusal?

[Paul Boddie]

On Thursday 28. September 2017 17.45.03 Carsten Agger wrote:
> 
> Now, I wouldn't have a big problem with that - if only they had a good
> old-fashioned meter that will accept coins. Or even a credit card.

Even some kind of SMS payment would be reasonably acceptable, but I guess the 
money is all in "apps" these days. (Actually, there is apparently money in 
sending SMS messages, but that's another story.)

> But no, you *must* download a proprietary app, different ones for
> different parts of town, and I think there's two annoyances here:
> 
> * It's unacceptable that you're actually required to carry a smartphone
> (Android or iOS only) to do something completely commonplace
> 
> * It's unaceptable that you're required to install and use non-free
> software to do it..

The challenge for us is to figure out how to formulate such demands for fair, 
accessible and usable infrastructure. It has been a struggle to get the 
message across in other areas.

[...]

> Exactly. And even though requiring a smartphone is not strictly a
> software freedom issue (you might be able to use one with free software
> only), I do think it's a question of how we want our cities to be in the
> digital era. Do we want them to be system-friendly, requiring people to
> cater for the whims of software developers, or people friendly? "People
> friendly" would be to always allow common infrastructure to work without
> people carrying specific electronic gadgets.

A friend of mine mentioned having her public transport ticket checked, which 
was in her case accessible via a specific "app" (of course), and when she told 
the inspectors that it was taking a while to come up on screen, the remark was 
made that maybe she should "get a newer phone". I can think of several 
responses, some very impolite, others wondering whether ticket inspectors make 
so much money that they can regard having the latest gadgets as some kind of 
civic duty.

One problem is that "apps" are tempting for people offering public services 
because the hardware involved is somewhat generic, meaning that municipalities 
(and their corporate entities) can avoid procuring things for specific 
purposes. In Oslo, they spent substantial amounts eliminating paper tickets 
with a smartcard system where (1) the readers didn't work, (2) the barriers 
couldn't be used because of fire regulations, (3) the roll-out was so slow 
that the first batch of cards had apparently degraded and were unreliable or 
unusable, (4) connectivity is required to validate tickets, and (5) they have 
to issue cards for short-term users like tourists or somehow make the "app" 
work for them.

With such a background of inept procurement (or demonstrably corrupt, in some 
cases in the public transport bureaucracy), having an "app" seems like the 
ultimate answer. But the correct answer is to provide people with the means to 
access the services, not to burden them with something that they think 
everyone should have anyway.

Paul
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Is lack of software freedom a valid reason for refusal?

[Carsten Agger]

On 09/28/2017 05:05 PM, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On Friday 22. September 2017 15.57.26 Florian Snow wrote:
>> Carsten Agger  writes:
>>> * I want to park my car in the city, but it's only possible to pay by
>>> downloading one of two proprietary apps (real-world situation in
>>> Copenhagen) on my smartphone. Can I refuse to pay an eventual fine on
>>> the grounds that I couldn't pay?
>> No, you get a fine because you have the choice of parking elsewhere.
> If Copenhagen is like other cities, the opportunities for parking elsewhere 
> may be very limited. In Oslo, I either *don't* want to know or I would 
> *really* like to know (depending on how much I feel like looking closely at 
> some potentially corrupt dealings) how the parking situation got to be some 
> kind of cartel where supposedly "managed" parking is outrageously expensive 
> and where many people consequently have to play the automotive equivalent of 
> musical chairs to hunt down the limited number of available, free, on-street 
> spaces that are the only real long-term parking option for many people.
In Copenhagen, it used to be so that ouside of Jagtvej/Falkonér Allé,
parking was free.

It's now changed to payment-only nearly everywhere in the city proper.
This means that free parking is only available approaching the suburbs.

Now, I wouldn't have a big problem with that - if only they had a good
old-fashioned meter that will accept coins. Or even a credit card.

But no, you *must* download a proprietary app, different ones for
different parts of town, and I think there's two annoyances here:

* It's unacceptable that you're actually required to carry a smartphone
(Android or iOS only) to do something completely commonplace

* It's unaceptable that you're required to install and use non-free
software to do it..
> It is a question of accessibility in a broad sense. If people can interact 
> with the payment mechanisms using public infrastructure then there is no 
> problem. However, "apps" are the modern form of the kind of private networks 
> that various corporations wanted to cultivate before the general Internet 
> became popular. It would be like someone in the 1990s saying that you could 
> only park if you had either a Compuserve account or were an eager early 
> adopter of Apple's eWorld (or whatever it was called).

Exactly. And even though requiring a smartphone is not strictly a
software freedom issue (you might be able to use one with free software
only), I do think it's a question of how we want our cities to be in the
digital era. Do we want them to be system-friendly, requiring people to
cater for the whims of software developers, or people friendly? "People
friendly" would be to always allow common infrastructure to work without
people carrying specific electronic gadgets.


___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Is lack of software freedom a valid reason for refusal?

[Paul Boddie]

On Friday 22. September 2017 15.57.26 Florian Snow wrote:
> 
> Carsten Agger  writes:
> > * I want to park my car in the city, but it's only possible to pay by
> > downloading one of two proprietary apps (real-world situation in
> > Copenhagen) on my smartphone. Can I refuse to pay an eventual fine on
> > the grounds that I couldn't pay?
> 
> No, you get a fine because you have the choice of parking elsewhere.

If Copenhagen is like other cities, the opportunities for parking elsewhere 
may be very limited. In Oslo, I either *don't* want to know or I would 
*really* like to know (depending on how much I feel like looking closely at 
some potentially corrupt dealings) how the parking situation got to be some 
kind of cartel where supposedly "managed" parking is outrageously expensive 
and where many people consequently have to play the automotive equivalent of 
musical chairs to hunt down the limited number of available, free, on-street 
spaces that are the only real long-term parking option for many people.

> The situation is essentially the same for people without a smartphone.
> If there is an alternative solution for them (pay by phone call or text
> message), then you could use that as well, but if there isn't both
> situations pose the same problem.

It is a question of accessibility in a broad sense. If people can interact 
with the payment mechanisms using public infrastructure then there is no 
problem. However, "apps" are the modern form of the kind of private networks 
that various corporations wanted to cultivate before the general Internet 
became popular. It would be like someone in the 1990s saying that you could 
only park if you had either a Compuserve account or were an eager early 
adopter of Apple's eWorld (or whatever it was called).

So these parking operators are forcing you to do business with specific 
companies. This is also why people should not be forced to use proprietary 
software, especially when interacting with public services.

> If it is a private company that uses those apps, then I see no issue at
> all.  If it is the government, then I would say the government should
> generally not force its citicens to use non-free software.

One colossal problem is that municipalities outsource services to private 
companies, some even structuring their *own* operations using a network of 
companies that take on different forms, potentially to seek exemptions from 
public obligations. I personally believe that companies should, in any case, 
be obliged to operate using standards-based, open, public infrastructure.

Paul
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Is lack of software freedom a valid reason for refusal?

[Paul Sutton]

On 22/09/17 21:24, Jonas Oberg wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> So the unemployment office would eventually resort to
>> offering you one of those
> 
> I think it's important to differentiate between on the one hand the ethical 
> question, and on the other hand the practical question of how unemployment 
> benefits would vary.
> 
> The latter would be different between countries, and individuals (some may 
> have additional unemployment benefits privately, through their unions or 
> similar).
> 
> So I'm not sure how useful it is to compare :-)
> Jonas Öberg
> Free Software Foundation Europe | jo...@fsfe.org
> Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join)


I think one of the points that is made here,  is that change comes from
within,  sure you can apply for a job where the company is using
non-free software.  Once in you can suggest change and ideas.  A new
tool chain or how they can benefit from releasing software under a gpl
or similar license, but still make money from support and with help from
the fsfe cite some good examples of who has made a success from doing that.

It could be that the reason there is no Linux version is that there is
no one to help develop it,  which you could end up as project lead.

Paul


> ___
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
> https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> 

-- 
http://www.zleap.net
diaspora : zl...@joindiaspora.com
Torbay Tech Jam http://torbaytechjam.org.uk
Next Tech jam 2nd Saturday of the month
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Is lack of software freedom a valid reason for refusal?

[Florian Snow]

Hi Jonas,


Jonas Oberg  writes:
> No one should be able to fault someone else for not following the same
> moral compass as someone else.

You are talking about this specific issue though, aren't you?

Happy hacking!
Florian
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Is lack of software freedom a valid reason for refusal?

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

I would go for the following:

For the job, if the job *doesn't* require adapting or making a software
(probably a non-free one), I would accept it, would work for some time,
then slowly spread the free/libre software philosophy in the workplace
(I would do so through civilized conversations and formal process). If
some outsider asks what you're doing there: tell that, besides being
employed to do what you're doing there, you're also responsible for
convincing the organization to use, adapt, require and provide
free/libre software --- in case the organization does all these things,
but with non-free software --- and also tell that this is somewhat slow
process which also deals with people's biased mindsets (which is
true). If you get fired and people ask why, tell them that the
organization failed to do what was suggested and that their negligence
made the collaboration impossible.

Before the process of making the suggestion to the organization, it's a
good idea to conduct research on what are their needs in regards to the
software functionalities ([1][9]). And if some free/libre software lacks
such, help this software by either hiring someone to make it that way
and upstream changes, or also do it yourself --- if you do know how
to. This is why the money you get from the job is important. However, it
must be noted that I said "functionalities", so this doesn't involve
asking the organization "which license is preferred?", because they'll
probably make biased arguments towards permissive/lax/non-copyleft
(e.g.: "MIT" (Expat or X11?), BSDs), weak copyleft (e.g.: GNU LGPL) or
out-of-date strong copyleft licenses (e.g.: any GNU AGPL/GPL that isn't
equal to "3+"/"version 3 'or later'"). We must get GNU AGPL 3+ ("3 'or
later'") in all the things now, both to avoid SaaSS and digital
handcuffs, besides individually-held copyright assignments and
community-oriented copyleft enforcement ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]). ;)

At least in hostile environments, it's best to start aiming for 1% of
free/libre software there, than aim immediatelly high (100%) ([1]).

As for jobs where you would be paid to make non-free software or adapt
some software in order to make a non-free one --- these two also include
webpages that have JavaScript code, because this one is *client-side*,
for more information see the GNU LibreJS ([10]) project and FSF's FreeJS
campaign ([11]) ---, in the moment of signing the employement contract
--- or if not "sigining": accepting it verbally ---, make use of the
ContractPatch ([12]) *before* accepting/signing the contract. While you
have the unsigned contract on your hands, consider consulting a lawyer
--- paid or /pro bono/ --- and also making meetings involving the lawyer
and employer to reduce the gap in bargaining power ([1]). If the
employer denies, refuse the contract.

In both cases (direct software development and not), look out for
contract terminology such as "ownership", "invention", "copyright",
"intelectual property", "confidentiality", "conflict of interest" ([1]).

As for what programs are used during work, you can talk to the cowerks
or direct supervisors to get the real information on whether any
software is allowed, rather than the head CTO ([1]). Formal culture is
different from informal. Besides, if the organization has the "Bring
Your Own Devices" policy, then you can argue that in the same way that
the current employees are able to bring their own non-free software and
"feel satisfied", then the employer shouldn't discriminate against you
bringing free/libre software to make your work ([1]).

About the requirement to use non-free software in order to pay for
parking cars, perhaps writing free/libre software replacement for this
is another good use of the money one gets from the jobs. It's also
possible to take public transportation or even asking someone who also
goes in the same direction as you to take you there --- or to some part
of the path. I don't know if the city were you live requires the same
payment for parking bicycles, but you could also think of the
possibility of using these, and also of using skateboards and roller
skates, instead of the polluting and space-consuming ones (e.g.: cars,
motorcycles, trucks, SUVs).

Finally, discrimination against us free/libre software activists seem to
be common nowadays, including here in Brazil, Latin America. I wonder if
there is a formal organization with which we can talk to and say "hey!
we exist, and most employers don't seem to care"? ;)

[1] 

(CC BY-SA 4.0).

[2] 

 (CC BY-SA 4.0).

[3] 

 (CC BY-SA 4.0).

[4]  (CC BY-SA 
4.0).

[5] 

Re: Is lack of software freedom a valid reason for refusal?

[Theo Schmidt]

Am 22.09.2017 um 07:12 schrieb Carsten Agger:
...
> * I want to park my car in the city, but it's only possible to pay by
> downloading one of two proprietary apps (real-world situation in
> Copenhagen) on my smartphone. Can I refuse to pay an eventual fine on
> the grounds that I couldn't pay?

This sort of thing is becoming more and more evident and it angers me no
end. The problem is that there are almost no true politically controlled
public-service organisations any more like there used to be, they are at
best now publicly owned, but managed like private companies.

Therefore they do what they want and are under no legal obligation to
serve the public. Most countries have in this way privatized their Post
Offices including Girobanks, telephone companies, power and water
utilities, radio and TV stations.

I expect that this sort of thing will become the norm in this
increasingly neoliberal world, as in this aspect even social democrats
and greens follow the mainstream, and I guess there is nothing we can do
about it except vote extreme left, (or maybe some cases extreme right),
or if available the Pirate Party. And of course COMPLAIN COMPLAIN
COMPLAIN! Or drop out!

Regards, Theo
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Is lack of software freedom a valid reason for refusal?

[Jonas Oberg]

Hi Carsten,

>I imagine a number of situations:

I don't think there's a universal answer for this. It's a choice individuals 
need to make, taking into consideration the consequences it leads to. It's not 
dissimilar to the situation described here:

http://news.psu.edu/story/388899/2016/01/25/academics/ask-ethicist-can-i-turn-down-work-assignment-goes-against-my

The ethicist answering that question doesn't go into much detail but I believe 
the conclusion is a reasonable one:

"If you decline the assignment, you will need to accept any career consequences 
that you face, but you should have confidence because you stood up for what you 
believed in, and likely, you will gain the respect of your peers for taking a 
stand. Your career will be long, and you may face similar decisions at times. 
Deciding what you believe in and what you are willing to compromise on early 
will allow you to live with integrity."

Those consequences can be dire and include the loss of unemployment benefits in 
countries not recognizing your moral beliefs as a reason to reject employments. 
But the question is not easy: you have also been trained, potentially hired, 
for a particular job, and the employer has, and likely should have, a 
significant power to direct the work you do for the benefit of the 
organisation. Even if this means using proprietary software.

But the risk you then face is that of risking your employment. If you're a 
midwife refusing to carry out abortions out of your moral beliefs, you can not, 
and should not, be allowed to work in public health care, as the employer must 
be able to direct you to carry out an abortion.

What is important to me though is the recognition that there are highly 
individual answers to this. No one should be able to fault someone else for not 
following the same moral compass as someone else.


Jonas Öberg
Free Software Foundation Europe | jo...@fsfe.org
Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join)
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Is lack of software freedom a valid reason for refusal?

[Carsten Agger]

On 09/22/2017 07:12 AM, Carsten Agger wrote:
> I imagine a number of situations:
>
>
> * Suppose I'm unemployed and dedicated to only using free software - I'm
> offered a job where I'll have to use Windows and Microsoft Word. If I
> refuse the job because of software freedom, can I still claim
> unemployment benefit?
>
> * I'm an unemployed programmer and get offered at job where I have to
> *write* proprietary software - I refuse because I won't participate in
> taking users' freedom. Can I still claim unemployment benefit?
>
> * I want to park my car in the city, but it's only possible to pay by
> downloading one of two proprietary apps (real-world situation in
> Copenhagen) on my smartphone. Can I refuse to pay an eventual fine on
> the grounds that I wasn't able to pay?
>
>
> ... etc.
>
Argh, sorry abt the typos, early morning :)

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion