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

[Garreau\, Alexandre]

Le 05/08/2014 à 03h41, 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. ]]]
>
>     > 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.
>
> It seems you really DO believe that lack of accessibility
> is as bad as a program that subjugates whoever uses it.

Like I said, it is not “as bad” since both aren’t comparable, they
aren’t linear measures. Each has its particularities, its problems, and
its issues. They’re not superior nor inferior but just different.

As several people said about freedom: rights without capacity is
useless, but capacity without rights is oppression. Both are not are not
acceptable within the context of any free and egalitarian society.

>     > 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?
>
> The disagreement is too deep and too important to be papered over
> and disregarded.  It is fundamental.

The disagreement is multiple, not only one. There is the one about the
usage of the word “freedom” that we have to clarify, and this new one
about hierarchizing ability and right. But since they aren’t linear you
can’t compare both. You can’t just say “free software is more
important”. Just as I couldn’t say “[Free] Internet is more important
than free software, if you say the opposite we have to fight your
ideas”, just because they’re two different things, interdependent things
(like said Benjamin Bayart “Internet and free software are two side of
the same object: without Internet, no free software; without free
software, no Internet”, considering that it is just *impossible* to say
if one is more important than the other, because one without the other
is less strong).

Indeed what we are promoting isn’t *only* accessibility, neither *only*
free software, it is both free and accessible software.

> The free software movement's message, our central point, is that a
> proprietary program subjugates its users and is an injustice.  Several
> of you, in this discussion, have persistently made statements that
> oppose our central point.

So I think you misunderstood these statements. We don’t reduce the
importance of free software neither oppose your principles. We just add
other principles. Or even better: we enlarge *the* original and unique
principle of Freedom in its large meaning to make it even stronger. so
that there is only one.

> In Colombia, the government has put computers with Windows into
> libraries to try to "help" people become computer literate.  One of
> the reasons cited for using Windows is that it has a convenient
> proprietary screen reader, which makes it "better" for blind people.
> Microsoft is subjugating the whole public in the name of the blind
> minority.

And we can both say that it is wrong, because in this story everybody is
subjugated, even blind people, so it goes against the interest of
everybody.

> Some of you have said you don't want that result.  I believe you.  But
> your campaign supports that sort of outcome nonetheless.  Each time
> you condemn free programs that lack accessibility, painting them as
> just as bad as proprietary software, that helps corporate-dominated
> states get away with choosing Windows.  We would ill serve our cause
> by supporting such a campaign.

We said the fact there weren’t accessible was bad, not “as bad” because
it is not comparable. 

> Indeed, there are statements on which you and we agree.  We may make
> those statements by ourselves.

If you could delegate the sensibilization work and just helping the
amount of work we do it could give more results with less
work. Therefore it is in our both interest to work together.

> If you confront the way your rhetoric harms the free software cause,
> you might then change your rhetoric in such a way that we could
> support you.  Or you might not.  But at least there would be a point
> in further discussion.

I think what we need is to identify more precisely the point on which we
would disagree deeply, and then work on then so that we can conciliate
our rhetorics and clarify the problematic points.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature