audio-video
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Audio-video] http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/ghm2013/Samuel_Thibau


From: MENGUAL Jean-Philippe
Subject: Re: [Audio-video] http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/ghm2013/Samuel_Thibault_Jean-Philippe_Mengual-Freedom_0_for_everybody_really_.text
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 22:43:38 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0

Le 02/08/2014 17:49, Richard Stallman a écrit :
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

     ok. Why couldn't we have a common approach saying: Yes, your
     program is free giving to the user the four fundamental freedoms
     against oppression by State. But to go beyond the oppression,
     maximize the freedom 0 consequence and make a program promoting
     freedom, equality, brotherhood (fraternity), it should be designed
     to be potentially accessible by any user.

Change that a little and we would agree with it.

Change what? Statements you don't understand? Or other part of the approach?

But when we discuss this,
people keep making statements that equate lack of accessibility with
subjugating users.  It's too bad.  If you don't believe that, why say it?

Because in a world where paying tax, getting social help, buying things, is governed by computers, if a technical environment is not accessible, the user needs help. And making something through the help of someone, when this thing is as important as paying tax or buying, the concerned users could be considered as subjugated because anyone can use their vulnerability to subjugate them. In some country, digital approach is mandatory, or strongly recommended (financial encuragments, etc.).


If you could systematically refrain from making such statements, we
would have no conflict.

I think the most important thing is having a common message, a message which could respect the thoughts of everyone, don't you think? It's the purpose of the approach I suggested. Do you see any danger even if both approaches exist? It seems to me that they aren't against free software, they only speak at a different level of action.



Regards,





--

Jean-Philippe MENGUAL

accelibreinfo, votre partenaire en informatique adaptée aux déficients visuels

Mail:address@hidden

Site Web:http://www.accelibreinfo.eu




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]