On philosophy, hierarchy of orgs, definitions, and the logo

[josX]

Alright then, lets toy some more ;-]
>josX wrote:
>> 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.
> 
>I knew that, I just snipped more than I ought too :/
>My bad, as our American cousins say.
you Mexico?

>> >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.)
>But we have to make the philosophical argument, or we may as well call
>our selves the "Open Source software Foundation".

But `we' don't. You can yell 24 hours in someboddy's ear, but he won't
listen if he hasn't seen a flikkering of High Quality Software for
himself. BTW, why do we have to advertise ourselves, we're here, ""our""
software runs the world, runs the internet, shouldn't that be advertisement
enough? Why should we want to force ppl, who have other things on their 
mind, to listen to some highly theoretical debate. Sometimes  you just have
to sit and wait you know.

>> >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. ;-)
>Yeah, but I don't think it'll be all that easy to get people to care
>about the odd computer crash. Maybe we can get them worked up about
>security or something, but making statements about music would get the

ppl are worked up too much already.

>media's attention far quicker.

bombing the white house?
oh boy, now we get the CIA here too! .-)

>> >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?

>I apologise for the over-snip and any confusion it may have caused :) 

Is it my eyes or do your replies come from somewhere else everytime I
blink ?

>I should also add that I don't really have an opinion on this yet- I'm

And your arguments seem to have type void a lot, check your HEADers!

>just trying to stimulate some debate :)

Do we need debate? no, we need software (`software-programs').
Maybe you could reshift your foci towards logos?

Better yet: get your hands on a manpage and translate, get your hands
on a C book and Code, get ... you catch my drift.
That's what I'm going to do, wish me luck :)

>--
>Alistair Davidson

>_______________________________________________
>Discussion mailing list
>Discussion at fsfeurope.org
>http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussion