lord_inh wrote:
>josX wrote:
>> summary:
>> "The FSF(E) should focus on everything that can be digital, because:
>> 1) I believe it should {sorry man, you ask for it}
>> 2) the word software will get that meaning or die
>> 3) everything in the world is transient
that ^ was a summmary of the post of David, it's not what I think.
>This is something that merits serious discussion.
>While I would not argue that an mp3 is a program, what about a
>self-executing music or movie file? Quibbling over the meaning of the
>word "program" is fruitless- language should be our tool, not our
>master.
100% agree
>But there is a case that says that Joe Sixpack probably doesn't care
>about the philosophical arguments about libre software. He might care
Agree, He will probably care not to loose his email on a broken fs,
and if it is free-software which makes that happen ,/that/ will be a
reason to be interested in freedom of ... (its my reason: if free software
had no quality, I surely wouldn't be interested in it, the fact that
it has quality makes it real interesting.)
>about gratis software, and maybe even about open-source software if he
>doesn't want his computer to crash, but I doubt he'll care about libre.
A there you have it. ;-)
>But issues like music sharing are legally equivalent to Free Software in
>many respects, and provide a platform which people can relate to and be
>engaged by. Acheiving our aims requires that we are reported, and we're
I think it requires more that the software is used, than that FSF(E)
gets reported as the latest media craze; first the software, the rest
follows.
>not often going to be reported or understood if our arguments don't
>relate to people in some way.
I'm a little confused here, did you think that summary was my statement?
>--
>Alistair Davidson