Using technological measures to purposely prevent someone to use non-free software, or to connect to sites not friendly to free/libre software, if and only if for the sake of "keeping software freedom" is indeed problematic. This paragraph must not be confused with:
- not recommending a given item; - recommending another instead; - refusing to give support/help upon finding out that the involved item is non-free; - disabling or modifying features that would by default recommend a non-free item. In free/libre software projects this kind of blockage tend to happen not by purpose (/e.g./: GNU Linux-libre), and so are considered a bug. 2018-01-18T13:13:51+0000 Mat Witts wrote: > I agree that is is not axiomatic under all conditions, and is only > salient in restricted circumstances - for example when FS adviocates > attempt to manipulate computer users towards software they believe is > better (ie/ free software) or prevent people connecting to proprietary > software (eg. like the sort of javascript etc. on Facebook). > > My complaint was about the obvious problem of FS advocates seeking to > manipulate computer users, albeit in the name of freedom through the > use of plugins etc. > > The comparison you make I believe is 100% apt in terms of the right > for a human person to sell themselves into slavery if they wish, yes. > > I think there is an element of this in many work and life contexts - > at least in terms of employment contracts and in the social contract > where we agree to follow the laws of the state even if we do not agree > with them on the grounds that if we don't, we may well be punished. > > Where you miss the point I think is that I am not suggesting that > people should have the right to deny others rights and freedoms, but > rather in pursuing the just cause of software freedom, some activists > go to far and inflate this well-intentioned and important work into > manipulation of computer users, which is to deny the rights and > freedoms of others to connect to Facebook for example. > > This is evident through the sorts of technologies discussed in this > thread, in preventing people from connecting to proprietary software > in an automated fashion. > > I say this because I feel strongly if FS advocates give up the moral > issue of computer user freedom and software developer freedom in their > advocacy, then that is a self-defeating activity. > > In contrast to your view, I believe that unless the FS movement treats > rights and freedoms as something that MUST be negotiated individually, > computer user freedom and free software will be unobtainable for the > the individuals who are being manipulated into using software (free or > otherwise) that isn't respecting their freedoms as much as is claimed. > > I'm not a staunch individualist, because I believe the rights of the > human person in some circumstances must fold into what is best for > society, especially in areas of public health and education and so > forth, and the options of the individual to opt out of freedom is a > fundamental prerequisite for both liberal and not-so-liberal education > programs everywhere. -- - https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno - Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com gratis). - "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo. - Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard - Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV. - Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF (apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion