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

[Alistair Davidson]

josX wrote:
> 
> 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?

Huh? Do you mean "Are you Mexican?". If that's what you meant, no, I'm
Scottish.
 
> >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.

People are interested in the "highly theoretical" debate over freedom of
speech and civil liberties. And as the many newspaper articles about P2P
file-sharing have shown, they are interested in copyright issues. If we
were to campaign on other digital copyright issues than just those
directly pertaining to software, we could potentially make our
philosophical case in an interesting and relevant way.
 
> >> >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.

I think we need to educate the media the next time that a macro virus
crashes all the mail servers. As we all know, the love-bug and Melissa
didn't affect Linux et al.
 
> >media's attention far quicker.
> 
> bombing the white house?
> oh boy, now we get the CIA here too! .-)

Heehee. But we're the FSFE- we should bomb the head office of the
Council of Europe ;)
 
> >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 dunno. How often do you 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!

I must confess to being a bit unsure of what you mean here. I'm no
header expert.
 
> >just trying to stimulate some debate :)
> 
> Do we need debate? no, we need software (`software-programs').

Yes, we need debate on this issue and any others that arise.

> Maybe you could reshift your foci towards logos?

Nah, I can't draw.
 
> 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 :)

Actually, I'm getting my hands on a Java book and coding, but it's the
same principle. Goo luck.

--
Alistair Davidson