<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/26/2017 12:14 PM, Daniel Pocock
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9ead4fa0-3fea-1a46-9a3d-8a9617d49c2a@pocock.pro">
<pre wrap="">
This was raised by Jonas in the thread about proprietary software, but
it is a completely different topic, so I'm starting this thread about
it: "we also don't do negative campaigning overall. We tell people they
should use Free Software; we don't tell them what software they should
not be using."
The reality is, many sites and software vendors deceive users with a
promise of security. E.g. when a user accesses Gmail, they see the
padlock icon in their browser, so doesn't that mean Gmail is secure? If
Gmail is secure and free software is secure, the user may ask why make
the effort to change to free software?
</pre>
</blockquote>
Also, there's this: The point of the free software movement is that
proprietary software strips the user of control.<br>
<br>
The history (and, I might add, mythology) of our movement points to
Richard Stallman's experience at MIT in the 70s and 80s as pivotal,
culminating with the practical problems caused by a proprietary and
NDA'ed driver for a brand new Xerox printer.<br>
<br>
The crux of this philosophy is that free software is *neutral* and
may be good or bad and do good or bad things, but that proprietary
software is fundamentally broken in that it disrespects its user's
freedoms. We're of course not dictating people what to do or what
not to do, but one of the movement's goals must be to educate people
that<i> </i>no proprietary software is inside
neutral-may-be-good-may-be-bad territory.<br>
<br>
That is, software being free is not associated with it being good -
it's the *minimum requirement* for any software to be even
acceptable. It does not follow that it's acceptable just because
it's free - e.g., a free browser could still monitor its users (but
users would be able and entitled to change that).<br>
<br>
I don't see how to communicate this point without saying or
implying negative things about proprietary software.<br>
<br>
Best <br>
Carsten<br>
</body>
</html>