Re: FWB: Foss with benefits

From: Charles Coss=E9 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [edu-eu] FWB: Foss with benefits
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 16:41:18 -0700
> Well, i don't know what i want to do anymore, but i will convince myself =
to
> use terminology acceptable to FSF, because i want to work with FSF and i =
do
> share much in common.   Quick digression:  I am 49 now, and I recall when
> the term FLOSS suddenly hit the stage ... and nobody explained to me where
> it came from ... but I was already developing FLOSS/GPL'd education
> software at that time ... and like most/many "old dogs" i didn't see the
> need for a "new trick".  Especially because it doesn't sound very nice in
> my ear ... much like when JPython had to change names to "Jython" ... yuk
> yuk and yuk again!  I still refer to it as JPython and "jython" in
> parentheses if necessary.

TBH I am less than enthusiastic about any of the terms or acronyms in
terms of 'branding.'  Just go and ask any random ten Jane or John Does
in a shopping mall if they've ever heard of them.   But FLOSS is the
FSF preference, so thanks for going with it.

> Ummm ... "fundamental" and "human" ... nothing human is fundamental.  But
> it's okay, i'm not going to eat children.  Just torture them with software
> :)

As indicated in my email to Kernc I've been fumbling for something
half remembered with my Eating Children argument.  So arming you with the s=
ame
definition of 'fundamental' - primary [intangible] from which other
things are derived.  Here's what I remember of that school lesson
over 40 years ago.

Leny:  How do we know there are fundamental human rights Sir?
Teach: Would you eat your own children Lindley?
Leny:  No, sir.
Teach: Would you eat members of your own family?
Leny:  No, sir.
Teach: Would you eat other people?
Leny:  In principle no, but I don't what I'd end up doing if they were
       dead already and it came down to eat them or die, sir. =

Teach: Leave that aside for a moment. Do you think others should do the sam=
e?
Leny:  Yes sir. =

Teach: Then from the principle that you won't eat your own children
       you have extended it to a universal human right that you
       personally won't eat anyone.  And you have demonstrated that
       just because a right is universal does not mean it is absolute.
       It's up to you to get the UN to adopt it.

The taboo against canibalism is not universal, there's no a priori
proof of it, so it is an arbritary moral judgement i.e. of right and
wrong.  So nowadays we'd probably say the above was merely a good
illustration of the principle here in the Western Hemisphere.

The four software freedoms OTOH do have an argument behind them and
from them you can derive things which eliminate or prevent injustices
(aka wrongs) caused by the proprietary software industry and
governments.

It's my personal opinion those four freedoms are new intrinsic human
rights *necessary* for this nanotech and networked age to operate
justly.  So I do what I was taught - try to help make it happen.

> I'm sure people are weary, but objection! The rights are not "theirs"
> apriori ... not until I give the rights to them.  I work hard to gain a
> competitive advantage in the job market, not to just give-away the
> knowledge that sets me apart.  The moment I jot-down an idea somebody else
> does not suddenly have a "(fundamental) right" to it.

We don't say it does.  The position is software should be treated like
scientific knowledge - once published it is everyones, although credit
is given.  Given software is merely procedural math notation and math
has traditionally been given the same treatment as scientific
knowledge this is reasonable.

> So you are saying that everyone has a fundamental human right to
> everything, regardless of the GPL, but the GPL makes it clear that the
> author agrees with that position in case of lawyers?

The GPL is a legal hack which uses existing copyright law to grant all
users their four freedoms with the respective software.  However, just
as you appear to have done, it is used by many people for a whole
variety of other reasons.  Thus using it does not always imply any
endorsement of the four freedoms, just as you do not endorse
everything you buy.

> In conclusion, if this is _this_ hard for me to understand (and accept) .=
..
> how can we expect someone entirely unfamiliar with such intricacies to ev=
en
> care?   Eating children, lawyers, thought police ... sounds like "Nightma=
re
> on (Free) Software Street".  Please go easy on me if you reply :)  And
> thanks for the continued thought-provoking discussion --

Heretofore I've not been explaining the 'Eating children' part very
well, so it's understandable that's hard to comprehend.

You get people to care by discussing the freedoms with them and making
them meaningful to them in their situation.  It can be a long process
and I've only done it one to one where you can tailor your discussion
to the specific individual.  Throughout which you've got to remember
they're perfectly entitled to disagree with you along the way, perhaps
you'll never agree and if you do, their opinion will inevitably change
afterwards as a result of other opinions.  =


As you will have noticed, sometimes you even have to establish that
there is such a thing as a universal human right.

OK?

Leny

_______________________________________________
European "Free Software in Education" mailing list

https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-eu