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 01:47, MENGUAL Jean-Philippe wrote:
> I only wanted to mention 3 points in this very interesting and
> intelligent debate (thanks Richard, to particisate to it)

I’d glad to thanks Richard too for this very interesting debate :)

> 1. Richard, what do you mean when you say that "accessibility is a
> functionality"? As I understand the idea, it is not.

I think he use the term “functionality” not as something reducing, not
an “add-on”, something that reduce accessibility to “something not so
important that /could/ be added”, but simply as “something functional”,
something that make able to do something, not something that gives the
right to do something (hence something that affects ability, technical
freedom, not right, social freedom, the one free-software movement is
about).

In the same way he thinks using freedom in a wider meaning could hurt
free-software movement, being misunderstood as saying hackers not
providing accessibility are doing something analogous to voluntary and
conscious oppression, we think using the word “functionality” in this
large meaning could be misunderstood reducing the importance of
accessibility, which is a “functionality” much more important as all
others common feature of a normal software (something near the feature
of “just working”).

Nonetheless, regarding the risk of misunderstanding of “liberté0”, I
simply disagree, I think that this links it to other really important
issues and thus make free-software movement a lot more important, and so
stronger. The risk of being misunderstood is negligible (in the math
meaning) in front of the benefit of linking free-software fight and
accessibility (and thus semantic software engineering) fight.

> Indeed, a functionality, in any program, can exist or not.

He use “functionality” in a such wide meaning that even “working” is a
functionality, so I think he doesn’t use it to reduce the importance of
accessibility.

> 2. If we follow the current approach, it implies 2 things. First,
> paradoxically, a user is more free with a "privator" program than with
> a free software?

In the meaning of “freedom” Richard use, a user isn’t more free with a
proprietary (“privator” doesn’t exist in English) program because
“freedom” is opposed to oppression, not to disability. Nonetheless the
issue stay still as much important.

> We only want to give a stronger message, with more consequences, to
> maximize absolutely the social project of free software in a world
> where computing can really help living as everybody despite a
> disability.

Making semantic (and thus accessible) software can be much more strong
to give strength to free software: even P2P, computers network
decentralization, culture opening, collaborative development and privacy
technologies would benefit from an evolution into the direction of more
semantic software architectures.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature