Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS web site

[Chris Croughton]

On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Kirsten Naylor wrote:

> No matter how much you protest, free software freedoms
> are for historical reasons numbered from zero.

So?  If you're going for "historical reasons" as a reason for doing
anything, why not stick with the tried and tested feudal system where
your lord owned everything you produced?

> The man who came up with it all did it that way in the beginning, and
> since people respected his work, they have preserved it.  Lots of
> things are done a particular way for historical reasons, with entirely
> neutral consequences... like mounting a horse from the left for
> example; that is the side it is correct to get on from, simply for
> historical reasons (you can't get on a horse from its right if you are
> wearing a long sword on your left side, as you would if you were right
> handed).  We don't wear swords now, but the method is preserved, as it
> really doesn't matter one way or another.

I know left-handed (-footed) people who mount from the right.  I can't,
I'm right-handed (-footed).  But I wouldn't say that's all that
'neutral', people who are 'sinsister' have been discriminated against
all through history and quoting "historical reasons" won't win you much
favour with them.  Historically, left-handed people didn't get to ride,
fight with swords or anything much else.

If you want a more neutral example, take the side of the road used for
driving.  And note that those who are used to one side still mock those
who drive on the other...

> Similarly I do not believe that the numbering system has any
> detrimental effect on the promotion of free software.  It does not
> matter one way or another, and I cannot take seriously your notion
> that "the man in the street" (whoever that might be) would be unable
> to comprehend the list of freedoms because of it.

No one is saying they are "unable to comprehend" it.  The "man on the
Clapham omnibus" (I believe that was the original test -- for historical
reasons) can understand all sorts of ways of saying things, as for
example with German speakers the verb at the end of the sentence
placing, but he doesn't find them natural and is likely to laugh at
them.

> Of course, AFFS *could* change the numbering (since it is irrelevant)
> but that creates a gap between AFFS and other free software
> organisations, which would not be comfortable for AFFS.

As pointed out, it can be done perfectly easily while preserving the
reference to the original and also allowing the points to be presented
in an order more likely to interest the average user (who is likely to
be much more interested in "I can distribute it to my friends" than in
"I can look at the source to see how it works".

> > not need cheap gimmicks
> > like geek counting in order to put the point across.
> 
> What started as quite a civilised discussion now has degenerated into
> slagging off.  It would be really nice if that didn't carry on.

Where's "slagging off"?  I suspect that most of us on the list are
self-admitted geeks (and proud of it), the point is that to most people
the term and the stereotypical behaviours which go with it are matters
of ridicule.  If the free software (or any other, for that matter)
community wants to be taken seriously in society as a whole then it
needs to follow the conventions of that society, no matter how much fun
it may be to have private slang and injokes used within that subgroup.

Chris C