Re: [Fsuk-manchester] the non-free neighbour asking for help dilemma

[Dave Crossland]

2008/5/6 Iain Roberts <address@hidden>:
> ----- "Dave Crossland" <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 2008/5/6 Iain Roberts <address@hidden>:
>> > As a liberal, I believe that it's not morally wrong for people to
>> act in
>> > such as way as to harm themselves.  If he chooses to constrain
>> > what he can do with software, it's not my business to tell him not
>> > to, just as it's not my business to tell him to give up smoking or
>> > drinking for his own good.  (And that assumes that he *does* harm
>> > himself in some way by choosing proprietary software, which I
>> > very much doubt).
>>
>> You ought to tell people who harm themselves to stop doing so, but
>> forcing them to do so cannot be justified.
>
> So how is he harming himself?

Its important to note that users of proprietary software are primarily
the victims of proprietary software developers, and secondarily
contributors to the problem.

He is harming himself by allowing proprietary software developers to
have direct power over him. He is also harming himself by weakening
his community, since he is promising not to share digital information
if he licenses proprietary software.

> Or, to put it another way, in
> what ways will his life be improved by switching to free software?

His life will be improved by increasing his involvement in his
community, since he can share software honestly, and improved by not
being held helpless by the developers of proprietary software and able
to influence the development of the software (even if he is not a
programmer, by submitting bug reports and feature requests)

>> When people send you data in formats only understood by proprietary
>> software, they pressure you to use proprietary software and it is
>> inconvenient for them to convert the data to a free format, and for
>> you to wait while they do this, or find some other way to get the job
>> done.
>>
>> If he sent them an OOXML file, and then the someone comes asking for
>> a word processor that can read that file, what will his answer be?
>
> Now you're talking about open standards which is entirely different
> to free software

It is, but I'm not talking about open standards.

Any format that is not supported by free software invites people to
use proprietary software.

> (you can, and do, have free software that writes
> files in an undocumented format nothing else understands and you
> can, and do, have proprietary software than writes in open standards).

Any format that is fully supported by free software is a de facto open
standard. If anything else wants to understand such a format (like
GIMP native file) then the code can be studied.

Any "open standard" that lacks a free software implementation is a
sham open standard.

>> Choosing proprietary software is morally bad. Please read
>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html that explains in full :-)
>
> Have read it more than once - just don't agree with it ;-)
> It makes a reasonable case for society in general being improved
> by having more free software, but a very weak case for why an
> individual should choose free software over proprietary, unless
> they actively want to make use of the four freedoms.

Society in general is the aggregate of individual choices, so a
reasonable case for society in general is therefore a reasonable case
for individuals.

Additionally, while only some users can actively make use of freedoms
1 and 3 when they have programming skills, all users can make use of
freedoms 0 and 2 immediately.

-- 
Regards,
Dave

I support www.gnuherds.org -
democratic free software jobs