Discussion Digest, Vol 71, Issue 10

[hwe]

> In the free world, there is no clear distinction
> between a developer, a user (or a customer, etc.), and that's the 
> whole point. 
Then we are talking about different points.  Because there are
clearly distinct non-developers: those 90% of the population who are
as /committed/ to never write a line of code, as much you are to free
software.  These were the people at least I was talking about.

> Everyone can become a developer or assume that role temporarily
I feel it's 100 times easier to convince people of software freedom.

> This comes with certain dose of inconvenience, such as explaining a
> friend why you can't use the link she sent you, or telling your
> boss that there is no way to do what he orders.  
Unemployment may be an inconvenience few are willing to suffer; I find
it hard to blame them for that.  (Although I oppose the
little-sacrifice-for-you-theory.)

Also, some will consider an advocate more credible if he can get his
job done than if he's on the dole.

But the question is: Given that full freedom is therefore ruled out
for them (for the time being), is the freedom for the N-1 other tasks
totally irrelevant?

I understand your position, irrelevant if they just use, only relevant
if they value the freedom.

The crucial point of disagreement is: Is it easier to convince people
already using SOME free software of its ethical value compared to
convincing those who use NONE?

I've never managed to convince people of anything remotely as abstract
as software freedom (and it is for those I was talking about) without
them experiencing it.  I know nobody who was utterly convinced of
software freedom when he heard about it and went straight to gNS at
once.  Everybody I know who ethically values it has grown up with
proprietary software and gradually learned to appreciate both the
practical and the ethical benefits of .

I agree it's a mistake to only argue "it's better".  But if you have
the same experience with the people you know who now value it (how
about yourself?), why not adjust the way you argue?  (from binary to
gradual)

If, on the other hand, you have more success first convincing the
people theoretically, before showing them what it's all about, please
share your arguments, I definitely need them.

> doesn't achieve that, especially if you teach them to accept
> non-free software as legitimate compromise
Nobody argues to present it as "okay"; all suggestions at least
included an explanation + asking for constant voicing of demand for a
free version.

> He just waived a hand when I pointed him to John Sullivan's article
>  series at fsf.org.  He didn't even read a single line.
You will never convince ALL people.  Neither is it necessary.  Slavery
is abolished, although you'll likely find individuals who'd not mind
owning slaves.

> Exactly.  It can never be used for that, as suggesting anything 
> non-free is self-defeating
And suggesting to stay with their 100% proprietary systems is not?
Because this is what you are effectively doing when you say that all
short of 100% free is equally worthless.

For many people 100% free at once is just infeasible (eg because they
prefer their job).  We can deny that, but this won't change it.  If we
accept it, will ignoring (or repelling) them really foster FS aims,
however defined?

> (FWIW, I basically agree that "Windows+Firefox+non-free-plugins" is
> better than "Windows+IE", but that's again the quantitive,
> arithmetic approach.
Is there something wrong with that approach?

We likely agree that software freedom is determined per software per
user, and that users need various programs.  Then, yes, I argue an
individual's freedom is like a weighted average over his freedom
across applications.
You argue it is the minimum over all.

We might also agree it involves less sacrifice to use 80% free
software than 100%.  Then when we convince someone to value it high
enough that he'll go for the first but not for the latter, you dismiss
his (ethical!) appreciation of software freedom; I say it's good, but
more remains to be done.

Finally, because I've been disagreeing a lot, I should point out that
we fundamentally agree: increasing the user base pales compared to
teaching the value of freedom.

 !hwe


PS: There's one thing that went where I won't ever go:

> It is about a complete,
> firm, and definite liberation of every computer user.  
Even the ones that definitely don't WANT to?  Then it's not something
I could call "liberation"...