[Access-activists] Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms

[Eric S. Johansson]

 On 7/28/2010 3:17 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>      >  Because our goal is to replace nonfree software, NOT to enhance it.
>
>      and my goal is to enhance the life of disabled users by increasing
>      the amount of free software available and eventually replace all
>      nonfree software.
>
> If we find projects that would serve both of these goals,
> the GNU Project will be happy to work with you on them.
> We don't need to have the same ultimate goals to work together
> on technical projects.
>
> But you must not use this list to argue against our goals.
> This list is part of a GNU activity, and its purpose is to work
> towards the goals of GNU.  Arguing against them is working
> against us.

I don't believe I was arguing against your goals. I was arguing against your 
lack of path to them or choices of innocence but I'll respect your request to 
express things in a more constructive fashion.  I will try to find a better way 
to point out when you are on a potential path to failure like you are now as 
well as potential paths to success.

> I've already explained why I think your definition of freedom is
> mistaken.  I have not convinced you, so I won't repeat those arguments
> now.  You have a right to your views, but you're not welcome to argue
> here against our goals, because that interferes with the work.  There
> are plenty of other places you can publish such arguments if you wish.
> But not here.

there are many definitions of freedom. Freedom from want, freedom from fear, and 
freedom from inequity caused by accident or birth. These are all social 
constructs that our society, from time to time, supports. For example, the 
Americans with disabilities act as an attempt to make it possible for disabled 
users to participate on equal footing with tabs. Mixed success and they are now 
trying to level the playing field for disabled users on the net after having 
failed on the desktop.  the sad thing is that most of the social definitions of 
freedom collide with yours. I'm going to end the discussion on this point here 
because I think it is truly unresolvable between the two of us. I am sad because 
to me computers have always had a social impact and that it has rarely been 
recognized and much less acted on.

I will take this stand and hopefully you can accept it.  The liberation of 
disabled people from the constraints of their disability is important to me, I 
will respect your philosophy of software freedom and in my work, support it 
while  at the same time trying to achieve my goals of disability 
mitigation/liberation.

--- eric