On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 07:43:17 +0100 (CET), [email protected] wrote: > Hi, as I learn from you guys as well as GNU, I realize that > > *no one promise and/or protect your privacy/security entirely _for_ you.* > > At most what they try hard was to provide an opportunity for you. One should > exert his/her own efforts to protect his/herself. > > Therefore, inferring from this thought, the fs movement that GNU and FSF led > might had been led to mix up people's perception on their privacy and > 'freedom'.
This makes no sense. Could you please clarify what you mean? What I have gathered so far is that since users have to work for their privacy with free software, and no one can be expected to shield them from harm without the cooperation of the user in making sensible, privacy-respecting choices, you have 'inferred' that the FSF is confusing people. What? The FSF and/or GNU have never even promised to shield their users from privacy breaches 100% of the time, with no action on the user's part; because that's a silly promise to make. > The term 'freedom' is too hug and broad. One can say I don't have a > computer, I don't understand English, so I don't have freedom to use your > 'free' software that your software are not free/libre ! This is a silly complaint, and one that I could not imagine anyone ever making. Just because someone doesn't have access to the software doesn't make it any less free, because obviously access to computing equipment is a necessary prerequisite to the issue of computing freedom even cropping up.
