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

[Dave Crossland]

2008/5/6 Mac <address@hidden>:
> Dave Crossland wrote:
>>
>> You are conflating freedom with convenience.
>>
>> It is morally bad for him to choose to run proprietary software, even
>> if it's very convenient, because they are giving up their freedom and
>> that effects him (because he no longer the aspect of his life he uses
>> the software for) and everyone else (because he promises not to share,
>> and makes it less convenient for others to reject that software.)
>>
>> The best tool for the job is a free one.
>
> I've been thinking about how RMS uses the important and serious
> word 'freedom' in relation to our use of computers, and what it really means
> to contrast 'freedom' with 'convenience' in this regard.
>
> You see, I'm beginning to wonder whether using computers at all isn't more a
> matter of convenience than freedom.
>
> So, shouldn't the person we're discussing here just write a letter on paper,
> rather than assume we have a computer, or send us the calculations and
> graphs on paper, or send us a tape of the music he just composed?
>
> In other words, do we want to argue that to use computers and the internet
> are, in themselves, moral imperatives, or a condition of human existence and
> spiritual progress, or the only route to freedom?

No, that would be an exaggeration of the argument for free software.

If you have a computer, you are lucky, and can do many jobs more
conveniently than with paper or tapes.

If you have a computer, in a free society, you ought to have
meaningful freedom in the software that runs on your computer.

> It seems to me that the 'moral problem' we're puzzling over is more to do
> with people making genuinely informed choices about things that are
> essentially a matter of convenience, but in full knowledge of the
> consequences -- to themselves and their community:  a bit like using a car,
> knowing that it emits carbon dioxide.  But, as others have said, what kind
> of 'freedom' are we arguing for if we assert that they must be prevented
> from making the 'wrong' choice?  (Though perhaps using aeroplanes to go on
> holiday may soon be forbidden by law!)

No one has asserted that anyone must or ought to be prevented from doing wrong.

What I am asserting is that people are doing wrong.

Perhaps distributing proprietary software will be forbidden by law;
there are lots of wrong behaviours which we make laws to forbid. Since
our societies make laws that forbid good things - like non-commercial
sharing of bitstreams with friends, or really important things like
effective political protesting - I don't have much hope for this
though...

> But if someone thoughtlessly sends us a Word file, and won't or can't offer
> us an alternative, we can phone him and ask him to print it and send it to
> us in an envelope.  Isn't asking for it as a .odf really a matter of our own
> convenience?

It is, yes; if he can't send an ODF or a Word format I can read with
free software, I'd have to ask for a paper copy.

> I'm seriously struggling with this, so I'm finding the discussion here
> really helpful (though I can see that folk have strong feelings;  so I hope
> we'll be able to pursue this topic without getting angry with each other).

I enjoy these discussions too :-)

-- 
Regards,
Dave