2018-05-02T09:36:56+0200 ludek.stas...@gmail.com wrote: > of fun. Yes, I absolutely agree to use a relatively small non-free > driver with the fact that when I do not need it, I will remove it is > the ideal solution. I like how we are called in the Czech Republic "a
One must notice however that this "need" is sometimes weaker than what some speakers say, for example, I don't "need" to install non-free software in my own computer order to have my college assignment reviewed for plagiarism, I can instead go to the college, LAN houses (a shop in Brazil where one can get computers through rents paid per hour of usage), and from these places, use that non-free functional data there (also considering that I might have to install it there). It's very different from Karen Sandler's scenario where she had to minimize the risk of the non-free software somehow in her implantable cardiac defibrillator because in that case she does "need" that thing otherwise she probably wouldn't be among us free/libre activists. All in all, I need to make an addendum here: while making use of these non-free functional data seems to solve the immediate problem that you have, it doesn't change the fact that we must do something to improve the freedom of the software[1] in our computing. The above adition also applies to JavaScript forced upon you through websites[2]. Sometimes it's a matter of contacting the website owner explaining how bad client-side autoexecuted scripts are for accessibility, security (thanks to the discovery of Meltdown and Spectre, see[3]) and privacy (for all these points, see [4][5][6]), within that contact, also mention that there are ways to keep using JavaScript, but that requires freeing it, and then mention the Free JavaScript campaign[2] and the related development task force[7], which by the way is also looking for skilled JS developers. Other times, one must change service provider, to one which doesn't require usage of a website like that. [1] I used the term "freedom of the software" but the other one, "software freedom" is more common. In short they both mean what is expressed in the alternative I used, because we talk about *the software* which should make *its freedoms* available to the end-user. However, I once saw some people confusing "software freedom" with "the freedom to choose which software to use", and this is a communication noise in our circles, particularly seen in some "free software" (sic) events in Brazil. [2] https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/freejs . [3] These two are literally impossible to fix, the only way to do so would be to have 99% of the world's computers trashed. [4] https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/the-surreptitious-assault-on-privacy-security-and-freedom/ . [5] https://mikegerwitz.com/2018/01/Meltdown-Spectre-and-the-Web . [6] https://mikegerwitz.com/2017/06/Don-t-force-me-to-use-your-tools-on-the-Web . [7] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/js-devs-task-force .
