[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms

From: Eric S. Johansson
Subject: Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:22:03 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1

 On 7/28/2010 3:17 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
     >  Because our goal is to replace nonfree software, NOT to enhance it.

     and my goal is to enhance the life of disabled users by increasing
     the amount of free software available and eventually replace all
     nonfree software.

If we find projects that would serve both of these goals,
the GNU Project will be happy to work with you on them.
We don't need to have the same ultimate goals to work together
on technical projects.

But you must not use this list to argue against our goals.
This list is part of a GNU activity, and its purpose is to work
towards the goals of GNU.  Arguing against them is working
against us.

I don't believe I was arguing against your goals. I was arguing against your lack of path to them or choices of innocence but I'll respect your request to express things in a more constructive fashion. I will try to find a better way to point out when you are on a potential path to failure like you are now as well as potential paths to success.

I've already explained why I think your definition of freedom is
mistaken.  I have not convinced you, so I won't repeat those arguments
now.  You have a right to your views, but you're not welcome to argue
here against our goals, because that interferes with the work.  There
are plenty of other places you can publish such arguments if you wish.
But not here.

there are many definitions of freedom. Freedom from want, freedom from fear, and freedom from inequity caused by accident or birth. These are all social constructs that our society, from time to time, supports. For example, the Americans with disabilities act as an attempt to make it possible for disabled users to participate on equal footing with tabs. Mixed success and they are now trying to level the playing field for disabled users on the net after having failed on the desktop. the sad thing is that most of the social definitions of freedom collide with yours. I'm going to end the discussion on this point here because I think it is truly unresolvable between the two of us. I am sad because to me computers have always had a social impact and that it has rarely been recognized and much less acted on.

I will take this stand and hopefully you can accept it. The liberation of disabled people from the constraints of their disability is important to me, I will respect your philosophy of software freedom and in my work, support it while at the same time trying to achieve my goals of disability mitigation/liberation.

--- eric

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]