Re: [Fsfe-uk] The Reg on RMS in London

[Ralph Janke]

P.L.Hayes wrote:

> On Friday 28 May 2004 18:34, Ralph Janke wrote:
>  
>
> > I don't see the problem here. Freedom and liberty are for me as
> > essential for quality of live as is health.
> >    
>
> For me too but the problem is that it is irrelevant what you or I already feel 
> about these matters; what counts is what people unfamiliar with the issues 
> will think and feel in the near future and it is clumsy and counterproductive 
> to introduce a dramatic and emotive analogy when important members of your 
> audience are well aware of the life and death seriousness of one half of it 
> but may currently see the other half as a relatively trivial technical or 
> industrial matter. It may be a long time before 'computer' and 'keyboard' are 
> associated together in the average mind in the same way that 'pen' and 
> 'paper' or 'canvas' and 'brush' already are.
>
>  
I understand your concerns, but I think there is another perspective as 
well.

The nice thing about diversity is that not everybody thing in the same 
straight line. What you describe as clumsy
and couterproductive, others see other genius and revolutionary.

I believe people are made of different fabric, have different talents 
and therefore are able to take on different roles.
I believe the strength of diversity is to accept these differences and 
tolerate the different perspectives.
Richard Stallmen has a different way of thinking, and a personallity 
which often offends people. That is part of
his nature, the way his brain is wired. However, those traits come with 
his unwavering commitment to go through
with his ideas. Many people would have long given up if they would have 
stood in his shoes.

I also see an oportunity here to take the contraversity to open peoples 
mind and to allow them to see
another perspective.

> Even if that happy circumstance does eventually arise you'd still have a hard 
> time of it convincing people of the validity of that particular analogy and 
> it is hardly an effective means of persuading people who are still exploring 
> the rational grounds on which the arguments are based - people like the 
> politicians that were present. It is a serious tactical error to attempt to 
> use strong emotional leverage in an argument unless you can be fairly certain 
> your audience is already receptive to it. As James said:
>
>  
>
> > The problem with the analogy is just what Lucy Sheffield says -- from 
> > the point of view of bare logical structure, maybe it is an effective 
> > reductio ad absurdum.  But that ignores the human level, where even 
> > hinting at any comparability between the two is likely to draw a sharp 
> > intake of breath, and in very questionable taste.
> >    
>
> Which is the whole point - one mistake like that and with some people you can 
> lose the whole argument.
>
>  
As I said before. I do not believe that Richard Stallmen will ever 
really understand this point of view. He is
no politician and will never be one. His brain is not wired in a way to 
understand it. If you are afraid of this, then
you probably should forbid Richard to talk anywhere, where politicians 
are around. Or have some diplomat there
to translate for them.
On the other hand, I think it shows the fundamental problem we have in 
society, that in particular the politician are
not capable to appreciate diversity. Otherwise the would be able not to 
get hung up on such minor issues and
look at the big picture.

I also do not believe that one mistake or tactical error will decide the 
war. It might have an influence on a battle, but
there are many battles to win or loose the war. I believe the struggle 
over software patents is a fundamental struggel
over the direction of society. Our world has changed so much that a lot 
of things in society have not been able to
keep up with it. There will be lots of changes in law, politics even 
they way we view democracy.

I think we have to stop looking for the quick fix and commit to stay in 
it for the long run. Rome was not built in one day. And
Richard Stallman is working on making GPL are grassroots movement for 20 
year now. And at the end it doesn't
concern one politician what Richard says. They are concerned to be 
re-elected. If you want to change a politicians
mind, you need to have their constituency put pressure on them. Richards 
words have little effect in this regard.

I remember when the green grassroot movement started in Germany. Most 
people in the movement were viewed by the establishment
in the way you describe your fear politicians may look at the free 
software movement. However, today, a lot of the revolutionary talk
of that time is in every parties' manifest. And the green party in 
Germany is in its second Government. I have heard lots of opinions
at that time about being more aggressive and confront people more v. try 
to not offend people, etc.

At the end the strong point is to do both. People need to be shaken up, 
to be offended in some way, to wake up and see that there is a problem.
And then they need to be led to an alternative of the status-quo. They 
need contructive methods for the change. However, nobody would even
listen to opportunities of changes if they do not accept the need for 
it. And this sometimes needs a more aggressive approach.

And the end, I believe, it is important that we all work on the issue 
with our specific talents. We can all put our impuls on the momentum wheel.
And than change will happen. Internal fights for the right way usually 
create opposite impulses and stop the momentum wheel.


Anyhow, this are my 2 cents worth,

Ralph Janke