Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

At http://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang/ the FSF even endorses
FreeBSD, which is known to have proprietary software in their ports.
(personally I think, FreeBSD shouldn't be listed there. If they must
list a BSD system it should be OpenBSD, which has, in contrast to
FreeBSD, an explicit free software agenda).



I don't see FreeBSD as an endorsed free OS. Will you please provide 
the link to report that bug?


Possibly they are refering to its kernel which I beleive is free 
http://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang/freebsd . Nevertheless, it 
shouldn't be endoresed because it promotes non free software.


--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero


"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

On 22/08/11 16:01, Henry Jensen wrote:

Hello Quiliro,



Hi :-)

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:19:50 -0500

Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:


It is OK to use the terms in a positive way but not to be distracted
from the issue of freedom. A position more according to FSF and in the
positive sense as you propose would be: "Use ONLY free software to be in
control of your computer".

Using only free software is the ideal situation, the goal that have to
be reached. But you can't reach people if you claim you possess the
absolute truth and all others do not. So one must lead people towards
free software carefully, one step at a time.


Going one step ot a time is ok. Saying something one does not defend 
just to have the other people happy is not the same as going one step at 
a time.


Expressing a person's position is in no way saying it is the absolute 
truth. It is saying it is that person's position. The person that does 
not accept another's position is the one that thinks that they have the 
absolute truth.

If someone told you he wanted to replace, let's say, MS Office with
Libre Office on his proprietary system, would you assist him in
installing it?


Of course!


Or would you decline and say "first you must run a
completely free system like Trisquel, and then I help you"?



It depends. If I could pull it off, of course I would opt for that. If I 
think that my possibilities for acheiving that would be better without 
imposing a free distro I would opt for the other solution but in neither 
case would install non-free software.



The FSF supports installing software on proprietary system as a first
step, see http://www.fsf.org/working-together/moving/windows/


Good stategy!


At http://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang/ the FSF even endorses
FreeBSD, which is known to have proprietary software in their ports.
(personally I think, FreeBSD shouldn't be listed there. If they must
list a BSD system it should be OpenBSD, which has, in contrast to
FreeBSD, an explicit free software agenda).



I don't see FreeBSD as an endorsed free OS. Will you please provide the 
link to report that bug?



What I want to say with that is, that the FSF is more diverse then you
perhaps know. Their argumentation is quite diverse as well. Many
aspects speak for free software, ethical, technological, economical,
security reasons and so on. Why should one concentrate only on one
line of argument? If I can't someone convince with the "software
freedom" argument, why shouldn't I try the "security" argument (and
frankly, I have been more successful with the security argument in the
past). The FSF uses such "technical" arguments as well.



I do not see diversity but a very clear position of the FSF. Diverse 
might be the opinions but there is a consensus on Free Software 
Foundation on standpoints. It is not so clear for people that focus on 
the tecnical specs. That is why it is important to get the freedom point 
clear even though the technical point convinces them. The best strategy 
is to show that the technical advantages are a direct efect of freedom 
and not the other way around.


When people say free software is better because it has no viruses, 
everything is lost. Even though it is true and easy to convince that 
way, in the long run those people are not going to defend freedom but 
functionalities. If on the other hand, we show that thanks to freedom we 
CAN make a better system, those people will feel empowered by free 
software and use the better software and then develop the better 
software where there isn't one.



Freedom takes sacrifice.

George W. Bush, 2005, about the war in Iraq

You cannot compare searching for freedom with attacking another country
and killing people. I do not propose hurting anybody or killing people
for the sake of freedom. That is contradictory. Please do not use that
type of camparison. It makes me feel you think that I am equal to that
terrible person. It is for me as if I would compare you to Hitler.

My apologies, I don't wanted to compare you with Bush.


Thank you.


I wanted to show
where a view that claims to be the absolute truth can lead. You compared
proprietary software with hunger and death. I think proprietary
software is wrong, but I wouldn't compare it with scourges of humanity.
Like a Christian who may think that Paganism is wrong, or a Socialist
that Capitalism is wrong. They try to change it, but they
certainly don't have an agenda to eradicate it (disregarding small
extreme factions).


There are no absolute truths unless you are the one and only God (if 
such would exist). Hunger and death are bad. They are not as bad as non 
free software but I really consider they are closely interlinked with 
monopolies. (Hunger is an effect of the monsopoly of food and death is 
the monopoly of weapons.) And monopolies are closely linked with non 
free software. They collaborate directly or indirectly as the BLAG 
people might understand better than me. So I wouldn't be far from off.



T

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hello Quiliro,

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:19:50 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:

> It is OK to use the terms in a positive way but not to be distracted 
> from the issue of freedom. A position more according to FSF and in the 
> positive sense as you propose would be: "Use ONLY free software to be in 
> control of your computer".

Using only free software is the ideal situation, the goal that have to
be reached. But you can't reach people if you claim you possess the
absolute truth and all others do not. So one must lead people towards
free software carefully, one step at a time.

If someone told you he wanted to replace, let's say, MS Office with
Libre Office on his proprietary system, would you assist him in
installing it? Or would you decline and say "first you must run a
completely free system like Trisquel, and then I help you"?

The FSF supports installing software on proprietary system as a first
step, see http://www.fsf.org/working-together/moving/windows/

At http://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang/ the FSF even endorses
FreeBSD, which is known to have proprietary software in their ports.
(personally I think, FreeBSD shouldn't be listed there. If they must
list a BSD system it should be OpenBSD, which has, in contrast to
FreeBSD, an explicit free software agenda).

What I want to say with that is, that the FSF is more diverse then you
perhaps know. Their argumentation is quite diverse as well. Many
aspects speak for free software, ethical, technological, economical,
security reasons and so on. Why should one concentrate only on one
line of argument? If I can't someone convince with the "software
freedom" argument, why shouldn't I try the "security" argument (and
frankly, I have been more successful with the security argument in the
past). The FSF uses such "technical" arguments as well.
 
> >> Freedom takes sacrifice.
> > George W. Bush, 2005, about the war in Iraq
> 
> You cannot compare searching for freedom with attacking another country 
> and killing people. I do not propose hurting anybody or killing people 
> for the sake of freedom. That is contradictory. Please do not use that 
> type of camparison. It makes me feel you think that I am equal to that 
> terrible person. It is for me as if I would compare you to Hitler.

My apologies, I don't wanted to compare you with Bush. I wanted to show
where a view that claims to be the absolute truth can lead. You compared
proprietary software with hunger and death. I think proprietary
software is wrong, but I wouldn't compare it with scourges of humanity.
Like a Christian who may think that Paganism is wrong, or a Socialist
that Capitalism is wrong. They try to change it, but they
certainly don't have an agenda to eradicate it (disregarding small
extreme factions).

The problem is, if you say, that a certain philosophy or idea is so
evil as hunger and death you make the first step in spreading hatred.
Not only towards that philosophy or idea but to the people who stand
for it as well. The next person who hear you say, that a philosophy or
an idea is so evil, may come to the conclusion that the people who
are standing for this idea are evil as well and should be punished.
Before you know it there will be hatred against other people, with all
its consequences. Spreading hatred is always wrong, no matter for which
cause.

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

On 22/08/11 09:48, Henry Jensen wrote:

Hi Quiliro,

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:57:10 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:



I don't see where the problem is to erradicate
things that do bad such as hunger, infant death and user subjugating
software.

The problem is the attitude. I can propagate my message in a positive
style ("Use free software to be in control of your computer") or in a
negative style ("Don't use proprietary software, it subjugates you and
should be eradicated"). With the former message I tell, that free
software is good for users and as such has a positive message. The
latter one is negative argument which has often a paradoxical and
defensively effect, which can even lead to the result, that some people
think that I am a lunatic. Simple marketing psychology.


It is OK to use the terms in a positive way but not to be distracted 
from the issue of freedom. A position more according to FSF and in the 
positive sense as you propose would be: "Use ONLY free software to be in 
control of your computer".



The point is: If you seek FSFs endorsement for ConnochaetOS, I would
think that you agree with their philisophy and not with OSI's


I didn't mention OSI anywhere. Of course I support the free software
philosophy. But I don't think it would be good to exclude open source
activists or people who use the term "open source" instead of "free
software". There is no sharp boundary between those camps anyway.



You do not mention them but propose the same things as they do.


Freedom takes sacrifice.

George W. Bush, 2005, about the war in Iraq


You cannot compare searching for freedom with attacking another country 
and killing people. I do not propose hurting anybody or killing people 
for the sake of freedom. That is contradictory. Please do not use that 
type of camparison. It makes me feel you think that I am equal to that 
terrible person. It is for me as if I would compare you to Hitler.


--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero


"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Jason Self]

Quiliro Ordóñez wrote
> The point is: If you seek FSFs endorsement for ConnochaetOS, I would
> think that you agree with their philisophy and not with OSI's

Er; is't actually:

  

Exactly! :)

> For example, if I tell someone who is unfamiliar with free software
> "With open source software you have the freedom to use and to modify
> the software, and  additionally to redistribute the software and your
> modifications. That's why I recommend to use it"

But do you explain why that's important? From the OSI website: "The promise of
open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower
cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in."

I know several people with this mindset. Their view is that software should
succeed on techical merits alone. They use the term "open source" and mean it
(i.e., not to be confused with those who say "open source" because they just
don't know any better.) At no point do they discuss the
social/ethical/political issues surrounding technology.

That's the key difference between free software and open source, I think.
Although there seems to be a general consensus about the freedoms that people
should have (run, study, modify and distribute the software), and the same
programs can qualify as both "open source" and "free software" at the same
time, the difference is that open source focuses on the technical reasons for
why those freedoms are important (as stated on the Open Source website) while
the free softwarement movement says that these freedoms are important on basic
ethical grounds. Whether it's also technically better isn't really the issue.
I'm reminded of this brief segment from RMS's talk at LibrePlanet 2010:

http://aws.bluehome.net/better.oga

I'm also reminded of this quote:

There is a true political issue in the choice between the terms "free
software" and "open source", and the respective ideas associated with
each.  Developers have a right to their political views, and we won't
judge the ethics of a distro by the political opinions that come with
it.  However, when we decide how much to promote a distro, we will
certainly do this more if it supports our cause.

Source: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FreeSoftwareAnalysis/FSF


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hi Quiliro,

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:57:10 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:


>I don't see where the problem is to erradicate 
>things that do bad such as hunger, infant death and user subjugating 
>software.

The problem is the attitude. I can propagate my message in a positive
style ("Use free software to be in control of your computer") or in a
negative style ("Don't use proprietary software, it subjugates you and
should be eradicated"). With the former message I tell, that free
software is good for users and as such has a positive message. The
latter one is negative argument which has often a paradoxical and
defensively effect, which can even lead to the result, that some people
think that I am a lunatic. Simple marketing psychology. 

> The point is: If you seek FSFs endorsement for ConnochaetOS, I would 
> think that you agree with their philisophy and not with OSI's 
> 

I didn't mention OSI anywhere. Of course I support the free software
philosophy. But I don't think it would be good to exclude open source
activists or people who use the term "open source" instead of "free
software". There is no sharp boundary between those camps anyway. 

>Freedom takes sacrifice.

George W. Bush, 2005, about the war in Iraq

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

On 22/08/11 03:25, Henry Jensen wrote:

Hello,



:-)


On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 18:44:23 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:


Open source philosophy proposes to use open source software as much as
possible. And where it is not possible it proposes to use proprietary
software as long as this is better for the development model.

That is not true in all cases. There are "Open Source" camps who reject
proprietary software and "free software" activists who have no problems
of using proprietary software. For example the OpenBSD project
describes itself as "free" but most OpenBSD people I spoke to have no
problem at all with using proprietary software on their desktop.



There are people that say they are for freedom but are in for control 
(e.g. Microsoft). What you say proves my point.



Free software philosophy proposes to eradicate non free software and to
develop alternatives to non free software or not use it at all.

This is a example of a cultural difference I spoke about in my last
mail. For me it is unthinkable to say that I want to "eradicate"
something. This is language I and most other people in my cultural
environment avoid.




You do not give an example of a free software activist that defends the 
use of non free software. I don't see where the problem is to erradicate 
things that do bad such as hunger, infant death and user subjugating 
software.


There are many people that consider themselves as free software 
activists. But if they do not defend freedom they are not FS activists. 
The FS movement is not against proprietary software activists but 
against non free (user subjugating) software. It is not intolerance 
against people. It is desire to erradicate abuse. It is never possible 
but it is possible to try to get the most free software we can and not 
that amount which is most comfortable for us. Freedom takes sacrifice.


The point is: If you seek FSFs endorsement for ConnochaetOS, I would 
think that you agree with their philisophy and not with OSI's 


--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517

"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa 
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de 
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana 
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero


"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa 
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de 
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana 
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hello,

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 18:44:23 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:

> Open source philosophy proposes to use open source software as much as 
> possible. And where it is not possible it proposes to use proprietary 
> software as long as this is better for the development model.

That is not true in all cases. There are "Open Source" camps who reject
proprietary software and "free software" activists who have no problems
of using proprietary software. For example the OpenBSD project
describes itself as "free" but most OpenBSD people I spoke to have no
problem at all with using proprietary software on their desktop.

> Free software philosophy proposes to eradicate non free software and to 
> develop alternatives to non free software or not use it at all.

This is a example of a cultural difference I spoke about in my last
mail. For me it is unthinkable to say that I want to "eradicate"
something. This is language I and most other people in my cultural
environment avoid. 


Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hello,

I have revised http://www.connochaetos.org/wiki/fully_free_-_what_does_it_mean, 
so that it should be  clarified now what we mean and what we talk about. In the 
end, I think, we all mean the same. But there are some cultural differences 
which may lead people to choose other wordings. For example in Germany we tend 
to use a careful diction and try to avoid wordings which may sound ideological, 
which has something to do that we had two dictatorships in the last 80 years, 
even if we argue for freedom or humanism.


Regards,

Henry