Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Ubuntu !free

[Dave Crossland]

2008/5/5 Richard Smedley <address@hidden>:
>
> On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 12:09 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
>> 2008/5/5 John Southern <address@hidden>:
>> > I am more worried about other freedoms such as the new rules on the
>> > Computer Misuse Act which came into force five days ago.
>
>> Do you know the URL of a good summary of this?
> <http://www.heise-online.co.uk/security/UK-Crown-Prosecution-Service-publishes-Computer-Misuse-Act-guidance--/news/101286>
> is a good start. Then a little more at:
> <http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/12/31/hacking-tool-guidance-finally-appears/>
> <http://www.openrightsgroup.org/orgwiki/index.php/Police_and_Justice_Bill_2006>

Perfect - thanks!

>> Sorry to hear you don't agree there is an ethical case of software freedom.
>
> Dave, if you read John's post instead of just leaping to
> conclusions based upon the last paragraph, you would know that
> you are somewhat mistaken. Or were you being ironic?

I did read his post in full, and that was my conclusion - from these
parts in particular:

> > gNewSense just seemed wrong, being based on Ubuntu, but with only the free
> > repositories available. This is effectively not giving me a choice.

That gNewSense "takes away choice" is common fallacious criticism of
the project, because it exaggerates taking away the provision of
proprietary software with taking away the choice to install it (which
is obviously always present in any computer system that can have
software installed on it.)

> > I would happily recommend MS Windows if that best suited the needs of the
> > individual.

I would never recommend Windows or any proprietary software, and I
criticise people who do use it, but if they are planning to escape to
a free OS in the long term and are using an increasing amount of free
software applications in the short term, I will commend them for that.

> > When recommending free software I give my usual freedom speech, but
> > I moderate from going into full rant as that would drive many away from the
> > best option for their needs.

It is possible to explain the pressing need to eradicate proprietary
software from our society without driving people away.

> > This does put me at odds with RMS.
> > I am not against MS.

I think this exaggerates RMS' position as unreasonable, and ignores
the grave danger that a convicted monopolist poses to a free society.

> > I am giving in? Possibly, but it is an imperfect world

This is also fallacious. That we live in an imperfect world does not
excuse giving up on improving the situation.

> Of course you could also judge by all the work John has done
> for the FS movement in the last decade and more, but I know
> that John blushes easily so I'll not go on. ;)

I wasn't aware of any of John's technical contributions, and I
certainly appreciate them (and probably use them on my own computers
:-)

But John can make a different kind of contribution by promoting an
ethical case for software freedom.

-- 
Regards,
Dave