Re: [Audio-video] [Liberté 0] Re: http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/ghm2013/Samuel_Thibault_Jean-Philippe_Mengual-Freedom_0_for_everybody_really_.text

[Luca Saiu]

On 2014-07-24 at 00:30, Armony ALTINIER wrote:

> not sharing your limited definition doesn't make
> others' reasoning invalid.

Indeed, it doesn't necessarily [1].  However the mere existence of a
second incompatible definition is an obstacle to clear expression.

Even if I never use the US convention for writing dates, the sole fact
that it exists makes me think twice before writing "10/05/2014" to mean
May 10th; this in practice makes the European convention less useful,
even if it's better designed than the US's, and drives me to prefer the
less traditional Asian or "hacker" notation "2014-05-10".

Since in our field wording is a way to state one's allegiance, I'll use
the phrase "freedom #0" in the GNU/FSF sense.  But now I'll feel forced
to also add explicit references and disclaimers to avoid confusion.
This confusion harms you as well, just as the date notation ambiguity is
an irritation to people in the US as well.

I really don't understand your stubbornness.

You are advocating for a subset of what we call free software, the
subset which we call free *and* is also accessible.  Very good: you
could say "free accessible software", or maybe invent a new catchy word
for the concept.  Why do you need to label some software which is free
in the GNU sense as non-free in the Armony sense?  What good does this
do?

> Why do you deny us the right to have a complementary definiton?

I don't see anybody trying to censor you.  In fact we're having this
conversation on a public GNU mailing list.

Amicalement (for real),

[1] I also have other problems with your definition, and with the UN
    definition quoted by Samuel.  Is it possible to completely satisfy?
    And what does it entail, exactly?  "Necessary", "appropriate",
    "disproportionate" and "undue" are all vague terms, maybe by
    necessity.  But I feel uneasy when I have to satisfy a set of
    constraints which is so open to subjective interpretation.  Even the
    term "equal", despite its long history of use, has been bent in
    different ways by jurisprudence throughout the years.  I don't like
    moving goalposts.

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