Re: FSFE in Outreachy?
On 04.09.2017 10:17, natacha wrote: > But I am unequivocally against such programs, on the simple grounds that > it tries to combat discrimination _through_ discrimination, which is > about as silly to me as trying to achieve world peace through war. To just negate discrimination makes it even stronger. That's why to fight the (existing) discrimination against Non-WASP[1] in favour of WASP. it is necessary to name discrimination. Stating that there is no difference just hides the social distinctions which are actually in place and working. This leads to neglecting those who are discriminated. [1] Just as example: White Anglo-Saxon Protestants ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: FSFE in Outreachy?
Hi Natacha, On Monday, 4 September 2017 10:17:16 CEST natacha wrote: > This is my first post on this list that I have been lurking for some Welcome to the mailing list :-) > > I don't know if it's okay if I add my five cents (adjusted for > > inflation), but I'm reasonably well-read on this and adjacent > > topics, as well as included in the list of minorities that would be > > sponsored under the Outreachy program. > > Carmen, the fact that you are a women does not make your voice any > more important in pulling down a fight that others have led for years > in order to change as little as they could current worlds order. I agree that my voice is no more important than anybody else's. Which is why I did not claim that. I am not pulling down any fight, however. You will find me advocating for freedom and equality for all. I merely disagree with this measure. > > But I am unequivocally against such programs, on the simple grounds > > that it tries to combat discrimination _through_ discrimination, > > which is about as silly to me as trying to achieve world peace > > through war. > I do not see any relation between building programs to encourage > diversity and war could you please expand. It's a metaphor. Consider also: Drying something by pouring water over it. You can't achieve something by doing its opposite. > I do not think the people who are victims of centuries of paternalist > government and colonialism should feel responsible of what the white > governing people fell. I really do not care about what they feel > actually, I am more interested on what the persons who are victim of > segregation feel. Well this is where we depart. You are saying that some people deserve your sympathy and support, and other people do not deserve your sympathy and support, by mere virtue of how they were born. I care for _everybody's_ equality and freedom. Surely, I hope, that's a good thing. > > because they might only be hired/accepted because of > > their status as minority, rather than excelling in their skillset. > > I do not see why people would hire anyone for anything else then their > skills. Also women and/or black people are not a minority women > compose more then 50% of the world population and white people in > general only compose 1/8 of worlds population, it is white men that > are a minority in this world, but it is also them who run it. Please replace every instance where I said "minority" with "women and ethnical minorities in the United States". I'd like a better word, but "minority" works reasonably well because, to put it bluntly, the named groups are minority groups in information technology. Unfortunately I have not found a better word, but I'd like suggestions if you have any. Because, to be fair, "women and ethnical minorities in the United States" is a mouthful. > Also what you say implies that non white male might have less skills > then white male, could you please state references for what you are > saying here. You will find that I said the exact opposite. I said that if a member of a minority group is given an internship under these discriminatory guidelines, they may not be sure whether this is owed to their status as minority (i.e., cheating the system), or because of their high skill level. This is a phenomenom well known as imposter syndrome, which is reasonably common among software engineers. God knows I sometimes feel like I'm cheating the system and just winging it rather than having any substantial merit. How could I not, when every day I encounter some software thing I know absolutely nothing about? > > I don't know if there is any evidence to suggest this. Where there > > are humans, things sometimes go awry. Having a more > > ethnically/sexually diverse cast of humans doesn't change that. > > Could you please reference what you say because I happen to think the > exact contrary, Take Switzerland or Belgium, two countries that are diverse in native ethnicities. Ask any one person whether they have once had disagreements in spite of living in such a diverse country, and you will find that they answer yes. It is in our nature to sometimes squabble and disagree, as I suppose we do now. Diversity does not prevent this. What you probably mean, is that squabbles occur less often in diverse environments. That is an interesting point of view, but I cannot vouch one way or the other. I do not know. I imagine the opposite, because this increases the surface area of things that people do not have in common and may thus fight over, but that's just a silly hypothesis. But the lot of that aside: I have said my piece, which is that I abhor discrimination of any kind over something so arbitrary and superficial as gender or ethnicity. People of all ethnicities and genders are equals, and I will treat them as equals without any prejudice. If that is not enough, I do not know what is. Having said that, I will not change your mind or anybody else's. Nev
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
Well, I hope Linux project decides to switch to GNU GPL 3+. Or even better: GNU AGPL3+. :) Also... Now I see what was the problem of threading: My own costume to avoid duplicating stuff, I'll try to fix that. :) Paul Boddie writes: > On Sunday 3. September 2017 15.34.55 Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: >> Yes, I was replying to Mat. :) >> >> Also note that correct copyleft defense should be >> collaboration/community-oriented, not based on judiciary/litigation >> pressures ([1][2][3]). :) > > Yes, this was a discussion on LWN recently. However, there still needs to be > a > licence with legal force, contrary to the apparent "old boys network" > doctrine > prevalent in the upper echelons of the Linux kernel development community. At > least if anyone is to make end-user rights a priority, not an afterthought. > >> I wonder however... Does my message appear correctly threaded in your >> email client? For me, it does. > > Yes, but I don't tend to use threaded mode (in KMail) because it isn't as > convenient. Besides, mail-sending etiquette suggests that some quoting is > done > to be considerate to those whose mail programs do not support threaded > message > views. And also, people do not necessarily reply to whole messages at once. > > Paul > > P.S. I imagine that the way that KMail forgets where it was when switching > folders and views is a factor in the broader use of threaded views. Such > things probably still worked acceptably in KDE 3, but have always seemed to > be > a problem in later versions, at least when seeing how related functions also > used to work but now do not, either. > ___ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@lists.fsfe.org > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Public Money - Public Code: Helping with the campaign
Just for information: I was replying to the message which originated this thread (the one which also has the link to the wiki page about the campaign). Adonay Felipe Nogueira writes: > One thing that would be important to promote is GNU LibreJS markup > compliance when the government, legislative, and judiciary wants some > web site that has any JS in it, or require web sites not to use > client-side scripting at all. > ___ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@lists.fsfe.org > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > -- - https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno - Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com gratis). - "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, use o GNU Ring ou o Tox. - 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
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
Sorry... I think I wrote something wrong indeed (perhaps due to being tired at the time)... my mistake. I didn't mean you are required to share every FS you write. Mat Witts writes: > On 21/08/17 12:51, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: >> I think you mean "private software" which is only used by yorself, and >> not shared to anyone, not even co-workers. Once you share it at least >> with someone, it ought to be free/libre because it's no longer >> "private". > > My understanding of 'private' is not so much 'secret' as you have > expressed here - but more like: 'subject to private property rights' > which are distributed/published, *privately*. > > If you are suggesting that I ought to be legally and morally obliged to > share all the software I produce under a FS license then that version of > freedom isn't the version I would fight for. Freedom without autonomy is > totalitarianism. > > with respect. > > / m > > > > ___ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@lists.fsfe.org > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > -- - https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno - Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com gratis). - "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, use o GNU Ring ou o Tox. - 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
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
On 21/08/17 14:28, Paul Boddie wrote: > However, if Mat should fail to do so here, it would be a private > matter between him and his daughter. You would think so wouldn't you? I can't help but see a horrible future for humanity under any alternate conditions. Adonay, I would welcome some justification for your insistence that any productive work that I wish to share with my family or friends ought to be released under a copyleft licence, and (more importantly I think) what sanctions or other behavioral interventions you would like to see if people like me refuse to do that? ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
> Well, I wasn't arguing that persuading people to leave Facebook would be a gain for Free Software. This was something you stated, perhaps speculating on how some people might think: that in this zero-sum game, people leaving Facebook will have to choose something else to fill the void, and if you keep persuading them, eventually they will find Free Software. I just wanted to point out that you can stop using Facebook and choose*nothing* instead. I agree but my statement assumed that lots of people want to participate in social media of some sort, (the evidence is fairly emphatic) so 'choosing something else' would be their choice too. Given there is so much to worry about with FB, making 'privacy' more personal might be a strategy, as was the case with the anti-CFC campaign which only got going when the harms of skin cancer were highlighted due to ozone depletion. Before that the story of climate change didn't make people change their fridges. If a similar story could be worked up about FB I think more people would take notice because in an age of CCTV no one is really feeling the anti-surveillance ticket are they? > Of course it is about money and control. Those wanting both of these things > got their success. oh - okay... I see what you mean. > [...] it is all very well for the FSFE (or a campaign, or supporters) telling people on Facebook that there are alternatives, maybe mentioning negative things about Facebook or maybe not, but if all those people who are supposedly seeing this message then go and investigate the Free Software alternatives and don't get a coherent picture of what they might be using instead, then the exercise will end up being a waste of everyone's time. Well I am not sure that FS ought to be billed as an 'alternative' anymore than not spying on someone is an 'alternative' to spying on them? ...we underestimate the amount of affective and cognitive labour that is required to make the change to FS I think by referring to 'alternatives'. Most people that are locked into Apple, MS, Google and FB and all the rest are not looking for an 'alternative', they are looking for whatever they think is best for them, so how do we get them there? The trouble is we don't, it will be their social network that gets them there so FSFE is more of a 'key influencer' for people in the industry and public admin and health and education at a fairly high level I think and less of an enabler of personal end users I think? / m > P.S. I noticed that you had a vacation message which was being sent to people > posting to the list. Maybe that was causing you to be moderated, but it might > be a good idea to adjust these notifications in future. I am reconfiguring my email in the next few days :-) ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
On 21/08/17 12:51, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > I think you mean "private software" which is only used by yorself, and > not shared to anyone, not even co-workers. Once you share it at least > with someone, it ought to be free/libre because it's no longer > "private". My understanding of 'private' is not so much 'secret' as you have expressed here - but more like: 'subject to private property rights' which are distributed/published, *privately*. If you are suggesting that I ought to be legally and morally obliged to share all the software I produce under a FS license then that version of freedom isn't the version I would fight for. Freedom without autonomy is totalitarianism. with respect. / m ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
Paul/ > Discouraging people from using FB for example can be restated as > 'encouraging people to use FS'. >> Not necessarily. The (logical:-/) *necessity* of leaving FB to use FS wasn't a point I was making as far as I can see, and I wouldn't be keen to pursue it because with more and more software being made available of all kinds the situation clearly isn't a 'zero-sum game' (so to speak). Human ingenuity I find has a canny knack of redefining things (and 'development' most often is in favour of the dominant idea - in this case - 'global capital') so this was more about the definition/articulation of FSFE's goals under such uncertain terms and conditions. I wanted to illustrate that the problem with the way the FSFE goals are often articulated dogmatically - in this negative way - is not consistent with the four freedoms whereas the second positive goal may also not be in the eyes of those that (for example) believe that FSFE's aims should only be accomplished using FS - because it's the only way to avoid critical self-defeat. However, the positive form does benefit from allowing the promotion of FSFE goals on both non-free and free platforms, which from the perspective of the practicalities of political campaigning for FS will I predict will be more effective simply because of the 'visibility' aspect. The reality is of course we need (and have) individuals that promote both versions and that's fine by me. But on the narrow question about the FSFE political campaigning methods - any policy on that ought not to extend to our individual free choice to refuse those methods, likewise if the FSFE were to adopt a policy of refusing non-free platforms (I think like the FSF?) I wouldn't expect that choice to extend to individual FSFE members own choices which may be different in some cases. I am sure none of the FS campaigning orgs are considering banning people for using non-free software? I hope not, but that would be the consequence of maintaining a very hard line on topics like this I think. So, the confusion is that a policy decision made by the FSFE ought to be made on what's best for the FSFE, not best for any individual member. Hopefully this potential conflict will often match both - but on the issue of promoting FSFE on FB, I don't think there is much to be said for refusing to engage on FB at that level while this ought not to be seen as a signal or endorsement of the platform. If it sounds illogical/inconsistent/confusing that's because reality is just like this. The individual campaigning around that will have to be creative... a number of tactics could be used I think for people expert in PR... >> So, people are not going to start using Free Software just because they realise that being on Facebook is a bad idea [...] Indeed, that's one permutation. Another one is people are not going to start using Free Software - full stop. We have to get used to that reality, over-zealous optimism for our cherished FS may drive some people away, people that would otherwise stay and listen to us perhaps? So, as a general rule I don't think it is controversial to suggest a lot of people who become interested in FS eventually attenuate their use of FB to almost zero so the pressure must be on getting people interested in Free Software surely, whether it's on FB or at our local brand of supermarket? While I applaud those that entertain the idea that we should only talk about FS in publicly owned spaces like parks, I'm happy that people are prepared to loosen their principles and talk about FS in the marketplace of non-free too... I see sofware use as an 'ecology' not so much as an ideology. There are some in the FS movement that have a zero tolerance on proprietary software as an ideological principle. Often (but not always) I agree there is good reason for this, especially in public administration, health, education and possibly a few other sectors. However, there are plenty of scenarios where proprietary software isn't ideal but may be tolerable... social media may be one - but it depends on a lot of other factors - the moral and legislative context of individual consent vs. public health and safety and so forth. > I don't feel morally obliged to share and share-alike the mobile > computer game I made for my daughter, but when I develop software for > an educational establishment my sense of obligation ramps up a lot. >> These are two different things, since you presumably don't share the game with anyone else at all. If you don't, you are actually touching upon the topic of creative works and why people might not want to share everything they create: a matter that some "free culture" people fail to understand. Yes, ontologically I agree my daughter is very different to an educational establishment which is why i gave them as an example. I think these two things demand different approaches to software licensing and within the four freedoms this right to develop software privately has to be include
Re: FSFE in Outreachy?
On 09/01/2017 09:54 AM, discussion-requ...@lists.fsfe.org wrote: > Subject: > Re: FSFE in Outreachy? > From: > Carmen Bianca Bakker > Date: > 09/01/2017 07:52 AM > > To: > discussion@lists.fsfe.org > > Dear Carmen This is my first post on this list that I have been lurking for some time but it is very impossible for me to let this be said without reacting. > Re-posting the below, which ended up on the wrong mailing list: > > Hi, > > I don't know if it's okay if I add my five cents (adjusted for > inflation), but I'm reasonably well-read on this and adjacent topics, as > well as included in the list of minorities that would be sponsored under > the Outreachy program. Carmen, the fact that you are a women does not make your voice any more important in pulling down a fight that others have led for years in order to change as little as they could current worlds order. > > But I am unequivocally against such programs, on the simple grounds that > it tries to combat discrimination _through_ discrimination, which is > about as silly to me as trying to achieve world peace through war. I do not see any relation between building programs to encourage diversity and war could you please expand. > It > generates envy/antipathy in individuals from groups that are excluded > from the given list of minorities, and it generates imposter syndrome in > those who are, I do not think the people who are victims of centuries of paternalist government and colonialism should feel responsible of what the white governing people fell. I really do not care about what they feel actually, I am more interested on what the persons who are victim of segregation feel. > because they might only be hired/accepted because of > their status as minority, rather than excelling in their skillset. I do not see why people would hire anyone for anything else then their skills. Also women and/or black people are not a minority women compose more then 50% of the world population and white people in general only compose 1/8 of worlds population, it is white men that are a minority in this world, but it is also them who run it. Also what you say implies that non white male might have less skills then white male, could you please state references for what you are saying here. > > I would be very against getting involved in this program, though I know > that the FSFE currently practises positive discrmination selection > standards for its internship program: > >> We want more women to be involved in Free Software. That's why we will >> give preference to applications from suitably qualified female >> candidates. > from https://fsfe.org/contribute/internship.en.html > > I'd personally be a little bit disappointed if this carried any > significance in my being selected as intern, because I do believe that I > can hold my own with my unique skillset. I really do not see why you should be judged like this and please feel reassured no-one has any reason to think that. > > On Thursday, 31 August 2017 13:43:59 CEST Daniel Pocock wrote: >> Increasing diversity could also help avoid situations like this in >> future. > I don't know if there is any evidence to suggest this. Where there are > humans, things sometimes go awry. Having a more ethnically/sexually > diverse cast of humans doesn't change that. Could you please reference what you say because I happen to think the exact contrary, regards natacha signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
