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

[Garreau\, Alexandre]

On 2014-07-19 at 01:04, Richard Stallman wrote:
> In political debate, it is a mistake to dismiss a disagreement as
> "purely linguistic" -- because everything is a matter of language.
>
> Meanings are expressed by words.  What we stand for is a meaning, and
> we express it in words.  Other words express other meanings, including
> some that are mistaken and some that disagree with us.

The meaning of a word is never universal (except in /newspeak/ of 1984,
or in lojban… err… no… not even lojban), here we all agree on the
meanings and on the ideas, but not on the words to use to name
them. That’s what Luca named a “purely linguistic” issue.

> The practical goal of the organizers of "Liberty 0" is to encourage
> free software developers to design for accessibility.  We support that
> goal.  However, the way that campaign is formulated, claiming that
> functionality is part of liberty, is a confusion we can't accept.

We simply use a word to mean something wider, but we still have the same
ideas and goals.

> To those organizers: if you reformulate the campaign, keeping the goal
> but without that claim, there would be no disagreement and we could
> endorse your campaign.

We can’t because we need this “purely linguistic” way of recalling the
strong link between what you call “freedom” (and I call “social freedom”
or “right”) and what you call “functionality” or “capacity” (and I call
“technical freedom” or “ability”).

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature