[Liverpool] New FSFE Free PDF Readers Campaign

[Bob Ham]

[ I feel I should point to this document
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html ]


On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 13:40 +0100, Sebastian wrote:
> 
> On 09/17/2010 09:43 AM, Bob Ham wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 23:11 +0100, Sebastian wrote:

> The "blindly" part referred to the recommendation made by the FSFE in 
> this particular case. In the sense that, unlike other cases, such as 
> office productivity software, in this case, their suggested solution 
> would have minimal to no benefits.

It would have the benefit of increased freedom for software users.  You
may not see freedom as a benefit but I think most people would.

The FSFE isn't blindly arguing for the principle of freedom.  They are
arguing for it with their eyes wide open.


> >> >  This particular campaign:
> >> >
> >> >  1. It's not for all our good.
> > I'm not sure what you mean here; the campaign is plainly intended to be
> > for all our good.
> 
> In a very fuzzy, idealogical kind of way. However, not in an immediate, 
> tangible way - it wouldn't bring any actual benefits

Here is an immediate, actual benefit:

  http://git.gnome.org/browse/evince/plain/shell/main.c


> >> >  2. It wouldn't really improve our lives in anyway.
> > The use of free software over proprietary software is an improvement in
> > the freedom of the user.  I think most people would consider increased
> > freedom to be an improvement in their life.
> 
> Again - you are referring to the whole of open source - I am strictly 
> talking about the proposed removal of Adobe Reader - and replacement 
> with alternatives.

Firstly, this campaign is about software freedom, not open source.

Secondly, the use of a free software PDF reader over Adobe Reader is an
improvement in the freedom of the user.  I think most people would
consider increased freedom to be an improvement in their life.


> >> >  4. It wouldn't open up the door for healthier competition
> > Again, I don't believe anybody has claimed that it will open up the door
> > for healthier competition.
> 
> Again, same here. Plenty of other open source initiatives

This is a free software initiative, not an open source initiative.


>> >  6. It would be done to keep the same principles of other campaigns they
> >> >  ran before.
> > I don't really understand what you're arguing here.
> 
> In that case you don't understand what I've been stating all along. In a 
> sentence, FSFE are doing a lot of fuss about a non-issue - purely out of 
> principle - in a case where their "principles" are not truly necessary

This is hyperbole.  A government isn't truly necessary.

> and wouldn't bring the usual benefits of open sourceness.

Again, the principle driving this campaign is software freedom, not
"open sourceness".


> That's what I call a bad strategy.

Campaigning for software freedom is a brilliant strategy if you are
concerned about software freedom.


-- 
Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh>

for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/liverpool/attachments/20100919/bac8e3c3/attachment.pgp>