Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms

[Rui Batista]

Hi,

First I'd like to point out some things, before commenting Mr. Stalman
comments:

1. English is not my native language like you can verify reading this
message. So if anything seems hard on someone or rude or whatever that
is not my intention.

2. RMS was and still is one of my references on free software and
filosophy related to these matters but from what I've been reading here
his points doesn't agree with the freedom he has been fighting for
years, dispite his logically correct points of of view according to
GNU's ideas.

Here are my comments though, directed to RMS:
Qui, 2010-07-29 às 14:32 -0400, Richard Stallman escreveu:
> I have tremendous respect for what RMS and so many on the list have 
>     achieved. Our  effectiveness however depends on achieving a balance 
>     between energy spent on our "vision" and on how to get there from here.
> 
> The only way to get there is to follow a road which leads there.

Even if that road has 384.00km? Not everyone can go to the moon in 3
days and be back safely. For many people a life time is not enough.
Waiting for GNU's kernel or speech recognition system is not a choice
most people can make. People might be not abble to type but want to be
produtive, have money to keep their famillies, and if proprietary
software is the only choice for now they will choose it. If the only way
they can contribute to a free recognition system is using propprietary
software to code it, they will do it or nothing. It's all or nothing.

> Acceptance of nonfree software is a road that never reaches the goal
> of freedom.  It leads somewhere else instead.  So we reject it here.
> 
So you are saying that using proprietary components to help people
interact with free software is unaccectable. Even if there is not
alternatives. You are throwing out all the people that can use and even
contribute to the free speech recognition system because it's needed to
use proprietary components. You are limiting their choices so denying
their freedom. Please MR. Stalman, keep in mind that even myself that am
writing this email from a gnu/Linux system (or better a
gnu/linux/gnome/ubuntu/... system) had to use proprietary screen readers
to start my computer activities in late 90s (I'm 22 btw). I had to use
comercial screen readers in univercity because some free software
products were not accessible to the free screen readers in Windows (NVDA
for the record, and a tcl/tk app). Do you think I'm evil? I had no other
choice. 


> In the long term, no software task inherently requires nonfree
> software.  In the short term, there are proprietary programs that do
> things that free software currently cannot do.  There is no dispute
> about this fact.  The question is what conclusions to draw from it.
> 
Like I said above, in the short term we have to get things done and if
proprietary software is the only way go for it. That's bad but history
has many exampples of this idea.

> To draw the conclusion that we should grant legitimacy to those
> proprietary programs tends to lead to more use and more development of
> proprietary programs.  It may seem convenient in the short term, but
> in the long term it perpetuates the problem.  It does this both
> directly and indirectly: directly by encouraging the use of specific
> nonfree programs, and indirectly by pouring water on the fire of our
> movement to eliminate them.
> 
Please keep in mind that noone here wants to legitimate those programs.
Noone wants any proprietary crap in the universe. But if they are the
ways to destroy themselvs lets go for it. Think this way, having a
proprietary speech ecognition system in existence allows more developers
to code a free one... From what I know, Linus coded the first kernel in
Minix, you may have coded first emacs stuff in other editors...

> Thus we must steel ourselves to refuse the sort of short-term
> "compassion" that makes injustice and dependence worse.  Work carried
> out under GNU auspices must be consistent with our principles.
> 
That's not only a matter of compassion. That's pragmatism. We are not
dealling with usual stuff. Most people that needs accessiblity is
dependent of other people for many stuff. Do you want them to be more
dependent because of some radical Ideas? That way you are lusing
valuable contributors. That way you are not allowing them to contribute
to their freedom. 
I'm not saying to make an exception or something, and marketing that GNU
components interact with proprietary speech recognition systems to all
social networks in the world. But before free alternatives exists making
that proprietary stuff work with free components will change some
people's lifes. O allow some people to use _more free software_.

> Improving Orca is an example of work that supports freedom while
> advancing access techmology.  That is the sort of work we can endorse.

That's really good to hear.
> 
> Rui Batista
> _______________________________________________
> Accessibility mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility

Rui Batista
E-mail/googletalk: ruiandrebatista (at) gmail (dot) com
MSN/WLM: ruiandrebatista (at) hotmail (dot) com (don't send mail to this
one)
Skype: ruiandrebatista
twitter: http://twitter.com/ragb
weblog: http://unreliabledevice.net