Re: [libreplanet-discuss] We need clear advocacy for software freedom, not proprietary greenwashing

[J.B. Nicholson]

arthur_torrey@comcast.net wrote:
> I agree, although at least from the evidence we see of users in the
> power chair world, a great many don't have any interest is knowing how
> their technology works. This seems really strange to me, but is it that
> much different from the computer owners that don't care about the O/S,
> programs, etc. as long as they can surf the web, look at FeceBook, write
> their documents, etc..

Most computer users are non-technical and are not interested in becoming 
programmers. But that doesn't address the issue of inequity involved in 
software freedom -- in proprietary programs, the program's programmers have 
the power to make that program do what they want. Users have no freedom to 
inspect, share, modify, or sometimes even run the program when they want 
to. There's a clear class issue here. Software freedom aims to (and does) 
resolve this inequity between programmers and users by letting anyone with 
a copy of the free program participate fully in its development.

There is a more important ethical issue here as well: it's wrong to deny 
others the freedoms of free software even if one doesn't want to take 
advantage of those freedoms. Software freedom is not and never was about 
compelling users to program. There are good reasons to want to understand 
how things work, and more people than ever before depend on computers in 
their daily lives. But one's unwillingness to learn even simple programming 
has nothing to do with whether such freedoms should exist for all other 
computer users.

It's more than a little disturbing that software freedom needs explication 
or defense on libreplanet-discuss. My understanding was that this was a 
mailing list run by the FSF for discussing free software with the 
understanding that universal software freedom was the goal.

> If I go into my chair's Pilot+ controller with the 'escaped into the
> wild' OEM level programming software, I get a list of parameters that
> let me change the way the chair operates in a multitude of ways, many of
> which would make it all but undriveable, and a couple that are
> dangerous, but all are at least somewhat documented and predictable...
> Going in and changing the actual software runs all sorts of risks of
> un-intended and unpredictable results - including possible security
> risks if the chair is connected to anything (Mine isn't and won't be,
> but many of the new chairs are...)

By endorsing software freedom one runs the risk of being able to let 
programmers (including oneself) locate and fix privacy violations; perhaps 
your chair is surreptitiously uploading data about your movements without 
your consent. It would be good to fix that so tracking data only goes where 
you want when you want that data to be distributed.

By endorsing software freedom one runs the risk of letting security-minded 
free software hackers (using that term in the original sense of 'playful 
cleverness') identify and fix flaws which let outsiders control critical 
devices without the owner's permission. For all you know those security 
flaws you don't want already exist in the chair's proprietary software you 
have now.

But the most important thing one gets from endorsing software freedom for 
its own sake is a constructive community of people who can help themselves 
control their lives and help others control their lives. This is an ethical 
way to treat other people when it comes to computer software.