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

[Samuel Thibault]

Richard Stallman, le Mon 04 Aug 2014 21:41:58 -0400, a écrit :
> 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.
> 
> Some of you have said you don't want that result.  I believe you.  But
> your campaign supports that sort of outcome nonetheless.

That is definitely not our goal.

> Each time you condemn free programs that lack accessibility,
> painting them as just as bad as proprietary software,

?!

We are not saying that, or at least we don't mean to say that.

Our situation is actually quite difficult:

- on one side, we discuss with developers to try to convince them
that they should make the little effort to make their free software
accessible.  With *that* audience, we indeed often take the example of
proprietary software, which enables some users to do a lot of things
which they can not do with free software *yet*, or the example of some
people getting fired because the free software, which replaced the
proprietary software, was not accessible *yet*.  We use those examples,
which are unacceptable situations for us, to try to convince them that
they really should do it.

- on the other side, we discuss with users, and we completly change
our arguments.  We definitely do *not* take the example of proprietary
software being better than free software, and on the contrary will claim
that yes, GNU/Linux with LibreOffice and Orca for instance are really
now usable for everyday office work, to try to convince them that free
software *is* accessible, and that they should not fear migrating to it.

In the case of the GHM talk, it was definitely
towards developers, as well as my two talks at RMLL
(https://2014.rmll.info/slides/259/2014-07-devel.txt , the second is not
available yet. So those are indeed using the first approach, and at RMLL
again using the Apple example, phrased a bit differently:

“
Now, compared to what we have with proprietary software, we are really late.
Compared to Windows, which started working on accessibility long long time ago,
we are really late. Compared to Apple, we are at Stone Age. Apple made a lot,
really a lot of effort, to make its products accessible. And disabled people
really like iPhones, and MacOS, etc. etc. just because it really does work, it's
integrated, you don't have to install new software, make your computer less
reliable or whatever, it's really good and integrated. They even have training
sessions in the Apple stores. So, they really managed to do it.

So there's no reason we shouldn't be able to do it, and it's a shame that
nowadays, some people recommend proprietary software, to free people with the
use of their computer. We should be able to use *free* software, to free people
for using their computer.
”

Here again, I made the mistake of using the "free" word to refer to what
somebody can do with a computer.  Which word could I use here to avoid
the confusion?  Please remember that we are not native english speakers,
so we are not used to the confusion brought by the "free" word.  In
french, I would have never used "libérer", but rather "permettre",
which means a permission, which is thus extremely different from
liberation.  Should I have just used "allow"?

Samuel