Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Why contains in nonfree that's not ethical?

[Milton Krutt]

> People
> don't understand at all, don't even trust in this history and doubt
> it happens. They even don't believe in it and unfortunately are not
> being educated to be free as in freedom.

Let's divide people in two sets: We, and the Others.
Let's also mention some humans' things:

Interest (in something),
Money,
Privacy.

In my opinion, caring for freedom, for We, comes from the Interest in some
computing activity; say this interest is the first ingredient in order to
care about free software.

Why am I quite sure?
Because if the very first feeling that leads towards the freedom of software was
the freedom itself (with zero Interest on computing), then WHY choosing the 
software
freedom? (I guess there are hundreds of other areas in which putting effort in
order to gain some freedom).

Now divide the Others in two groups, the Geeks and nonGeeks.

For the Geeks:
the more you are able to deploy your software and limit the four freedoms, the
more you get money (and inhibit comptetitors).

For the nonGeeks is quite the same:
the don't criticize the product they use UNLESS it will cause them some 
significative
and concentrated (in a single event) loss of money. They don't really care about
spending little amounts of money in a distributed edge of time. For instance, 
it is normal
for them buying a new laptop once every two years just because Windows is too 
heavy for the
older one..as opposite, they are almost happy, since that is a change to do 
some shopping!

Last, they don't care about Privacy, unless they can experience a significative 
and
concentrated shameful situation. They don't care about giving away small pieces 
of life
to some nonfree software developer, thanks to some nasty feature in their dayly 
software,
since the thing they fear most is their physical neighbour; and he will never 
know which
websites the person visited or which searches the person fed to Google. (unless 
he broke
the WPA key and the communication is plaintext..but on a global scale that's 
negligible,
and can't lead to a concentrated shameful event for the person)

After all, say an employee in Singapore snooped (through some feature hidden in 
its deployed
non free software) the sexual tastes of a regular person in Germany ..how can 
the second person's
life bu ruined by this event..? And if the employee in Singapore claims he 
knows something about
the german, how can he prove it? If the employee in Singapore really wants to 
legally prove it,
how much time that would cost to this employee..how many employees would do 
that in order to make
the average users globally concerned?

To synthesize, it seems that if a person get evil in a distributed (on time 
and/or space)
manner, than that evil is quite tolerable, so the person ends up to consider 
the free software
cause "over concerned"; then he will not care about it.

Please, don't take this message as pessimistic, it is just a picture and a 
point of view for
those that consider the disregard of average users for free software as 
"strange" or "should
not happen".

Bye

---
Comments of linguistic nature, addressed to my personal email,
are welcome too.