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

[Samuel Thibault]

The current thread is an interesting debate which I'd like to pursue,
but I'd also like to come back on the starting matter, how we can agree
on something about "freedom#0", which may help with soothing the overall
discussion :)

Richard Stallman, le Fri 18 Jul 2014 19:04:56 -0400, a écrit :
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Luca suggested:
> 
>     Is it so important for you to redefine freedom #0?  Can't you say, for
>     example, something like "Help me enjoy freedom #0 as well"?
> 
> I think that would solve the problem.

I believe we can agree on this.  We have no right to claim what
freedom#0 (as you have defined it) is, anyway.  I think we can still use
phrases like "beyond just freedom#0", "freedom#0 for everybody", etc.,
right?

Then of course the current debate "what's the use of freedom#0 without
accessibility?" holds and is a difficult question, but I think that at
least this phrasing doesn't pose problem to you? (I ask only about the
phrasing, not the debate, which does seem to pose problem, but that's
another matter, which is a debate only, not a conflict).

As Armony mentioned very early in the thread, we can let you check our
mentioning of freedom#0 in our association's goal, to make sure it
matches your definition, and we will make sure to continue taking care
about it.

Samuel