Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms

[Michael Whapples]

Hello,
Here's some of my thoughts on it. Also there's some interesting 
questions which I would like to know the answers to.

As a blind computer user I fully understand where Eric was coming from, 
assistive technology can give disabled people much freedom (I mean 
freedom in their lives rather than freedom of the technology). Anyway 
even if others dispute whether freedom is the correct term, my point 
there is that it can significantly improve the lives of disabled users 
and at times it really can feel like you are free of certain 
restrictions you would encounter if there was no assistive technology. 
Sometimes it can seem that with "free software" philosophy can come 
before practical solutions, in which cases users may be forced to use 
proprietary solutions to be able to do a task, which in turn may force 
them to use more proprietary software than they may wish to use (IE. the 
assistive technology software may only run on a proprietary operating 
system). That raises the question of whether partial freedom is better 
than no freedom (IE. if having a free environment with one proprietary 
component is better than a completely proprietary system, we're dealing 
with the case where a user would be unable to use the system without at 
least one proprietary component due to the lack of a usable free 
offering so completely free environment is not an option)?

However I have to say, as hard as it might be to swallow, if the FSF 
were to compromise on their philosophy and strong beliefs of freedom of 
software it would undermine what they stand for and damage their 
reputation, so I can't see how they could support/promote a solution 
requiring proprietary software. In short I think what Eric suggested 
would really need a different organisation to look after it.

Now the only thing I would possibly say more is (it was something Eric 
hinted at but didn't get much discussion), if there was a way for those 
who use speech recognition to be able to start using the system (even if 
it relied on proprietary software) then you may increase the pool of 
possible developers who would have an interest in possibly developing 
the speech recognition stuff. Is there anything compatible with the FSF 
philosophies which could be done to try and capture those interested 
developers who rely on speech recognition?

Michael Whapples
On -10/01/37 20:59, Richard Stallman wrote:
>      If I can't make money, software philosophy doesn't matter.
>
> You're entitled to your views, but the GNU Project is based on the
> opposite principle: freedom is the highest priority.  We consider
> proprietary software an injustice, and our goal is to free people from
> it.
>
>       the most important thing, a solution to disabled users.
>
> If the "solution" includes proprietary software, it's not a solution;
> it is the problem we are trying to eliminate.
>
>      yeah I thought so. Look higher up in the definition of freedom to economic
>      freedom.
>
> What you are calling "economic freedom" is not freedom at all.
> I think you have stretched the definition of freedom out of
> all sense.
>
>      They can't use linked in or write an e-mail
>      message. Web forums, Facebook, Google, USENET, IRC are all off limits to 
> them.
>
> That is unfortunate but it isn't a matter of freedom.  There was a
> time when I couldn't do these things, but I had freedom.  However,
> if I did them using proprietary software, I would not have freedom.
>
> Billions of people today are too poor to do these things.  Poverty is
> deprivation, but it isn't slavery.  Your concept of "economic freedom"
> is a misguided concept that attempts to disguise poverty as slavery.
> That is a mistake.
>
> If we define all kinds of deprivation as deprivation of freedom, what
> follows?  We believe that all people other than criminals deserve freedom.
> We believe they all deserve the same freedom.  So does that mean must
> all have the same wealth?  If I am denied some of the freedom Bill Gates
> has because I have less money than he, does that mean I deserve to have
> the same income he has?  Or the same wealth?
>
> Either we become levelers, advocating the same wealth or same income
> for everyone, or we have to abandon the principle that all deserve the
> same freedoms.  For me, that's a reductio ad absurdam: circumstancial
> limitations on a person's options do not constitute loss of freedom.
>
> In other words, freedom is not a matter of how many options you have.
> That is the wrong way to define freedom.
>
>      How about liberating people from economic misfortune, social isolation,
>      disconnection from governmental services because of their disability?
>
> These are deprivation, but not deprivation of freedom, so it is a
> mistake to use the term "liberating" here.  Is giving food to a
> hungry person "liberating" her?  Clearly not, although it is good for
> other reasons.
>
> Our primary goal is not "providing solutions", it is to eliminate the
> injustice of proprietary software.
>
> That's what we are doing.  You're welcome to help if you wish.
>
>
>
>
>