Noah;
I can't believe that you didn't see the message that I was trying to convey, so I'll be brief this time:
How shall we invite people to use free software when we can't agree on how to apply the principles of free software to decide if software is free?
That's the question I'm raising, not whether or not we can do anything else, or whether or not I framed it well.
I hope we can answer the question, not just talk about the question.
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: Noah Slater <nslater(a)tumbolia.org>
Sent: 13 December 2008 20:45
To: Sam Liddicott <sam(a)liddicott.com>
Cc: discussion(a)fsfeurope.org
Subject: Re: What is free sftware really? Was: RE: Article: "Fixing linux" - opinions?
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 08:01:40PM -0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> This discussion is why open source wins over free software.
This is a terrible way to frame the issue.
> Free software is in reality too complicated.
Free software is a political movement, open source is a pragmatic method.
Comparing the two is quite absurd, and yet so very common.
> The definition is simple-ish but not at all useful; because...
The definition has, and continues to be hugely useful for all manner of purposes!
> Even it's devotees can't agree on whether or not common "free" software is
> really free, and (from time to time) seem to suggest that they are each a
> bunch of unprincipled compromisers ruining the whole campaign.
Freedom means different things to different people. This is natural. What you're
essentially saying is that because freedom, morals, ethics, and value judgements
are necessarily subjective we should abandon the whole lot. Unless we can
quantify something objectively it has no value. Which is absurd.
> If we can't tell (or agree) what free software means practically then we
> should not be surprised at the mix of software masquerading as "free" -
> whatever that means, and practically speaking this is /obviously/ not clear to
> ANYONE though we each might think it is clear to ourself.
Sure, there is confusion. That is no reason to abandon ship. We need to work
better as a community to promote the issues and ideologies around free software
instead of "giving up" and talking about the "open source linux os" or whatever.
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Today I've read this article titled "
Fixing Linux: What's Broken And What To Do About It"
http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/linux/showArticle.jhtml?articl…
It contains a few arguments that are actually true and something
everyone who's using Linux has thought/complained/or hoped for at
least once.
(I'll put myself mainly on the list of "packaging" and "audio" problems)
These are things often noticed immediately by newcomers to the
GNU/Linux world, and I must admit that I'd often be happy to have
better solutions than the currently existing "freedom of choice
incompatibility happiness".
What's your opinion about the issues mentioned there?
Pb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBSUEqZYoz7fiqfir6AQJ3AQP7BKDg0WK1FkPjvLvOsJEtkFPL8l2j0gR7
sCNcBSPH4/+XOBrQdJMWvrA5uvz2T5ZbHF2pw8gsWDRZWf9vQBEnzbjO80bXEjy0
2vN7NeuWbSFpyBDQeu+byXHlepp/Hc1A4yE38CIs3Fv6KtjD8PH1CO3yLomBP69I
uvMgkxcQb9g=
=p7V9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dear Fellows,
during our regular meetings in the Berlin Fellowship group we
discussed how PDF is a very useful format, but its usage often goes
hand in hand with promotion of proprietary software, even though
there are Free Software PDF readers. So we decided to do something
about it.
Over the past months we discussed with other Fellows across Europe
on discussions(a)lists.fsfe.org, what we should be doing. Together we
have set up an initiative for promoting Free Software PDF readers at
http://pdfreaders.org.
The idea is that web masters should have an alternative for the "Get
Adobe Reader"-Buttons, linking to pdfreaders.org to inform people
about Free Software PDF readers and where to find them. There are
several buttons for pdfreaders.org that can be used for this purpose
online at http://pdfreaders.org/graphics.html.
When people then visit pdfreaders.org, they will get some very brief
information about Open Standards and Free Software, and why they
matter - along with information about the Free Software PDF readers
and links for more information.
We hope that you will help us to put these buttons on all sites that
use PDF.
Greetings from Berlin,
HennR and Hannes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Sorry.
Just wanted to add one more thing in advance:
- -----------
I don't agree with the author of this article in some points (e.g.
remote-backup, gui-stuff being in the kernel, etc...).
- -----------
However, it boils down to the need for more standardization of several
things like UI, package management, etc (something I think KDE is going
in a good direction).
Pb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBSUErWooz7fiqfir6AQIFYwP+PM3vZmNkduzTU9Q0J2Ga5a0W8Se98jzJ
33gmCZQLQ5f4jBEvHVFN3Wtp8WsSah1Qg2haTFBxVr994gTcZ2LzPHwoaF73yN2d
ERgM/dj0fJqQg2u5ASYRpJmyOx8ccKk0k2zj455s/JoOPFr/oio2Ex4fwY7kQTRA
HEvpH+HF/Uw=
=xHY7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Following up on the "IPR in ICT Standardisation" Workshop two weeks ago
in Brussels, FSFE president Georg Greve analysed the conflicts between
patents and standards. The resulting is paper about the most harmful
effects of patents on standards, the effectiveness of current remedies,
and potential future remedies. Read the whole article under:
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/os/ps.
= You want to help? =
- If you want to help us please distribute this document. E.g. submit it
to community sites. You can already vote for it on fsdaily [1]
- Sent us feedback to this list.
- When you have time you can help us _very much_ by translating the
document into your language. Download the xhtml version at the button
of the page [2], inform translators(a)fsfeurope.org that you start
translating it, translate it, and sent it for proofreading to
translators(a)fsfeurope.org.
Best wishes,
Matthias
1. http://www.fsdaily.com/Business/Analysis_on_balance_Standardisation_and_Pat…
2. http://fsfeurope.org/source/projects/os/ps.en.xhtml
--
Deputy German Coordinator, Fellowship Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) [] (http://fsfeurope.org)
Join the Fellowship of FSFE! [][][] (http://fsfe.org/join)
Your donation powers our work! || (http://fsfeurope.org/donate)
A recent post on BoycottNovell spoke of "evangelism" in the marketing
sense as a Microsoft term:
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/15/microsoft-guerrilla-people-monsters/
It isn't - the term was popularised by Guy Kawasaki in his work at
Apple, marketing the idea of the Macintosh as a working tool.
I submit that it's highly applicable to bringing people to free software.
Kawasaki wrote a book about this, "Selling The Dream", which I highly
recommend to anyone with a cause. Popularising a cause requires
selling and marketing it. This is much nicer with a good cause that
one sincerely believes in :-)
This blog post is relevant to previous discussions on this list:
http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/01/the_art_of_evan.html
"As people hit the streets with this title, they need a foundation of
the fundamental principles of evangelism. Fulfilling this need is the
purpose of today's blog.
1. Create a cause. As the previous blog called "Guy's Golden Touch"
explained, the starting point of evangelism is having a great thing to
evangelize. A cause seizes the moral high ground. It is a product or
service that improves the lives of people, ends bad things, or
perpetuates good things. It is not simply an exchange of
things/services for money.
2. Love the cause. "Evangelist" isn't simply a job title. It's a
way of life. It means that the evangelist totally loves the product
and sees it as a way to bring the "good news." A love of the cause is
the second most important determinant of the success of an
evangelist--second only to the quality of the cause itself. No matter
how great the person, if he doesn't love the cause, he cannot be a
good evangelist for it.
3. Look for agnostics, ignore atheists. A good evangelist can
usually tell if people understand and like a product in five minutes.
If they don't, cut your losses and avoid them. It is very hard to
convert someone to a new religion (ie, product) when he believes in
another god (ie, another product). It's much easier to convert a
person who has no proof about the goodness or badness of the
evangelist's product.
4. Localize the pain. No matter how revolutionary your product,
don't describe it using lofty, flowery terms like "revolutionary,"
"paradigm shifting," and "curve jumping." Macintosh wasn't positioned
as the third paradigm in personal computing; instead, it increased the
productivity and creativity of one person with one computer. People
don't buy "revolutions." They buy "aspirins" to fix the pain or
"vitamins" to supplement their lives.
5. Let people test drive the cause. Essentially, say to people, "We
think you are smart. Therefore, we aren't going to bludgeon you into
becoming our customer. Try our product, take it home, download it, and
then decide if it's right for you." A test drive is much more powerful
than an ad.
6. Learn to give a demo. An "evangelist who cannot give a great
demo" is an oxymoron. A person simply cannot be an evangelist if she
cannot demo the product. If a person cannot give a demo that quickens
the pulse of everyone in the audience, he should stay in sales or in
marketing.
7. Provide a safe first step. The path to adopting a cause should
have a slippery slope. There shouldn't be large barriers like
revamping the entire IT infrastructure. For example, the safe first
step to recruit an evangelist for the environment is not requiring
that she chain herself to a tree; it's to ask her to start recycling
and taking shorter showers.
8. Ignore pedigrees. Good evangelists aren't proud. They don't
focus on the people with big titles and big reputations. Frankly,
they'll meet with, and help, anyone who "gets it" and is willing to
help them. This is much more likely to be the database administrator
or secretary than the CIO.
9. Never tell a lie. Very simply, lying is morally and ethically
wrong. It also takes more energy because if one lies, then it is
necessary to keep track of the lies. If one always tells the truth,
then there's nothing to keep track of. Evangelists know their stuff,
so they never have to tell a lie to cover their ignorance.
10. Remember your friends. Be nice to the people on the way up
because one is likely to see them again on the way down. Once an
evangelist has achieved success, he shouldn't think that he'll never
need those folks again. One of the most likely people to buy a
Macintosh was an Apple II owner. One of the most likely people to buy
an iPod was a Macintosh owner. One of the most likely people to buy
whatever Apple puts out next is an iPod owner. And so it goes."
- d.
http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/articles/comment/0,1000002985,39541519,00.htm
Uses the term "free software" rather than "open source", and appears
to mean libre rather than merely gratis. (Though the intro and outro
use "open source." However, in context I think that helps establish
that by "free software" he does mean "libre" rather than "gratis.")
- d.
> In the free world, there is no clear distinction
> between a developer, a user (or a customer, etc.), and that's the
> whole point.
Then we are talking about different points. Because there are
clearly distinct non-developers: those 90% of the population who are
as /committed/ to never write a line of code, as much you are to free
software. These were the people at least I was talking about.
> Everyone can become a developer or assume that role temporarily
I feel it's 100 times easier to convince people of software freedom.
> This comes with certain dose of inconvenience, such as explaining a
> friend why you can't use the link she sent you, or telling your
> boss that there is no way to do what he orders.
Unemployment may be an inconvenience few are willing to suffer; I find
it hard to blame them for that. (Although I oppose the
little-sacrifice-for-you-theory.)
Also, some will consider an advocate more credible if he can get his
job done than if he's on the dole.
But the question is: Given that full freedom is therefore ruled out
for them (for the time being), is the freedom for the N-1 other tasks
totally irrelevant?
I understand your position, irrelevant if they just use, only relevant
if they value the freedom.
The crucial point of disagreement is: Is it easier to convince people
already using SOME free software of its ethical value compared to
convincing those who use NONE?
I've never managed to convince people of anything remotely as abstract
as software freedom (and it is for those I was talking about) without
them experiencing it. I know nobody who was utterly convinced of
software freedom when he heard about it and went straight to gNS at
once. Everybody I know who ethically values it has grown up with
proprietary software and gradually learned to appreciate both the
practical and the ethical benefits of .
I agree it's a mistake to only argue "it's better". But if you have
the same experience with the people you know who now value it (how
about yourself?), why not adjust the way you argue? (from binary to
gradual)
If, on the other hand, you have more success first convincing the
people theoretically, before showing them what it's all about, please
share your arguments, I definitely need them.
> doesn't achieve that, especially if you teach them to accept
> non-free software as legitimate compromise
Nobody argues to present it as "okay"; all suggestions at least
included an explanation + asking for constant voicing of demand for a
free version.
> He just waived a hand when I pointed him to John Sullivan's article
> series at fsf.org. He didn't even read a single line.
You will never convince ALL people. Neither is it necessary. Slavery
is abolished, although you'll likely find individuals who'd not mind
owning slaves.
> Exactly. It can never be used for that, as suggesting anything
> non-free is self-defeating
And suggesting to stay with their 100% proprietary systems is not?
Because this is what you are effectively doing when you say that all
short of 100% free is equally worthless.
For many people 100% free at once is just infeasible (eg because they
prefer their job). We can deny that, but this won't change it. If we
accept it, will ignoring (or repelling) them really foster FS aims,
however defined?
> (FWIW, I basically agree that "Windows+Firefox+non-free-plugins" is
> better than "Windows+IE", but that's again the quantitive,
> arithmetic approach.
Is there something wrong with that approach?
We likely agree that software freedom is determined per software per
user, and that users need various programs. Then, yes, I argue an
individual's freedom is like a weighted average over his freedom
across applications.
You argue it is the minimum over all.
We might also agree it involves less sacrifice to use 80% free
software than 100%. Then when we convince someone to value it high
enough that he'll go for the first but not for the latter, you dismiss
his (ethical!) appreciation of software freedom; I say it's good, but
more remains to be done.
Finally, because I've been disagreeing a lot, I should point out that
we fundamentally agree: increasing the user base pales compared to
teaching the value of freedom.
!hwe
PS: There's one thing that went where I won't ever go:
> It is about a complete,
> firm, and definite liberation of every computer user.
Even the ones that definitely don't WANT to? Then it's not something
I could call "liberation"...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>> 8) Making market share the top priority:
>> Might be true. I *do* have the feeling of a slight sellout happening
>> (e.g. Firefox), which causes loss of the actual vision - and a drift
>> away from the "good cause".
>>
>
> Firefox is proprietary software. See:
> http://directory.fsf.org/project/gnuzilla/
>
*sigh*
I know, I know... Mozilla's becoming similar to google:
they're doing something good, but on the other hand they're pulling some
strange stunts which makes me doubt to trust them (First it was the
name, the logo and trademark problems, now it's non-free code in their
binaries...)
Unfortunately it became incredibly confusing to follow the different
kinds of pure-GNU firefox browser forks. I've spent a whole evening
doing some reading about their differences, motivations, etc...
Seems like the info in my head is already outdated, because I've just
encountered "IceCat", which I thought was supposed to be "IceWeasel".
Now it's getting so damn confusing, that if you try to explain this to a
regular user, they'll just roll their eyes, sigh, shake their head and
walk away.
Why is this necessary [1]:
"The gNewSense BurningDog browser and the Debian IceWeasel browser are
similarly derived from Firefox, also with the intent of being free
software. Technically, however, these projects are maintained entirely
independently of IceCat. (Previously, this GNU browser project was also
named IceWeasel, but that proved confusing."
What's really confusing is that I have 3 free browsers now! Why the
fork? ...again?
HOWEVER:
What should one do now?
Let's imagine a conversation where I encounter people, tell them about
free software and it goes like this:
(A... someone, B... me)
A: "Sounds great! Where can I get started?"
I should now answer:
B: "Hm... use a free browser. Get IceCat!"
A: "Cool. never heard of it. I'm using Firefox"
B: "it's not free software... please use IceCat"
A: "ok. where can I get it?"
B: "apt-get install icecat"
A: "How do I do that with Windows?"
B: "Oh. sorry. you can't use any free software with windows. You will
never be able to gradually migrate to freedom. good bye."
I want things to be good. So I want things to be free (as in GPL).
...but I also don't want to end up grumpy and alone, completely
incompatible with the rest of the world.
This is why I want the rest of the world to understand why FS is the best.
What are your opinions regarding the Firefox/icecat issue here, when it
comes to "spreading the word"?
Pb
[1] http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBSQHCqYoz7fiqfir6AQI9iwP/eQ3FTYFu8LVsm0HyG11LY7riFZVh28zD
5yK/0JWINFV+YCTnqB6rEBgiSEpv1BhSCM1ZW8ZySNKu1QQ5RHdDX2AGQHSLTtdI
FD4Sc26vVHdYg/peKJfZFBAiL1Sq42OFGEYT38bKiHdDmLiSqphXeH9Vh7q27eeP
7/SYUrgYyQo=
=0zI7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----