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<address@hidden>  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.

> 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.

Saying something is not good does not imply hatred. Asking for rights 
and protesting for abuses was the way of Gandhi and he is know for peace.

> 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.

I would not support that in any way. Evil people are not the same as bad 
actions. I do not beleive in punishment. I beleive in rights.

> 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.

I agree. Asking for rights and protesting for abuses does not involve 
hatred but rather describes love for people and for their equal care.

--
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