Re: [Audio-video] http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/ghm2013/Samuel_Thibault_Jean-Philippe_Mengual-Freedom_0_for_everybody_really_.text

[Luca Saiu]

On 2014-07-13 at 01:20, Richard Stallman wrote:

> That article argues for a misguided definition of freedom.
> [including accessibility as a necessary condition for software freedom].

> Please post this note next to that link.

Can do, but doesn't the note sound a little harsh?  I propose the
rephrasing below (only for the note; I really like the linked article),
which doesn't remove anything from the meaning of your original text.
Longer explanation further down, in case you have time.

Your original version:

>   That speech starts from a misguided definition of freedom to equate
>   a lack of functionality with oughtright oppression.  Here we
>   explain <a
>   href="http://gnu.org/philosophy/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html";>the
>   GNU Project's stand on the issue</a>.

My proposed rephrasing:

  That speech has the unfortunate problem of conflating the issues of
  software freedom and practical usability.  In the GNU Project we make
  a point of clearly distinguishing lack of functionality, which in free
  software can be fixed given sufficient effort, from outright
  oppression.  See <a
  href="http://gnu.org/philosophy/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html";>this
  article</a> for an explanation of the GNU Project's stance.
  Nonetheless the practical issues discussed in the speech deserve to be
  taken into consideration.

Would this be OK?


Interestingly I've discussed the issue with the people involved, in more
than one occasion.

My position on freedom #0 was identical to yours with one added nuance:
stating that people have some right is distinct from providing the
practical possibility of enjoying such right under all circumstances,
and the problem remains *even when the right is stated with the force of
law*, and even despite all good-faith efforts.  (My favorite example is
the right to life as mentioned in many national constitutions and the US
Declaration of Independence.)
As you argue, freedom #1 allows one to change the software, lifting
practical technical limitations which get in the way of exerting freedom
#0 for some users.


I don't think you'll disagree with anything above; I would just like to
use slightly softer language, lest we demotivate people who contribute
in useful ways.

Regards,

-- 
Luca Saiu      http://ageinghacker.net
* GNU epsilon: http://www.gnu.org/software/epsilon
* Vaucanson:   http://vaucanson-project.org
* Marionnet:   http://marionnet.org