[pp.int.general] Why Free Software misses the point

[Fedor Khod'kov]

Boris Turovskiy <tourovski at gmail.com> writes:

> I don't define anyone's needs - I just don't want others to do it for
> me. When you say "the freedom to modify a program is an essential
> freedom [for everybody]", you define others' needs; when I say "the
> freedom to modify a program menas shit to a great lot of people", I
> don't define anything, I just negate your statement.

Most people don't exercise full set of human rights and freedoms.  Many
people, for example, don't give public speeches and don't write
articles, so they exercise freedom of speech only in most trivial sense
-- such as discussing matters of their everyday life with friends and
relatives.  Still, freedom of speech is essential for everybody, even
for people who aggressively deny it and for whom freedom of speech
"means shit".  By this I don't mean everybody must defend freedom of
speech (nobody could force others to do and nobody should even try to
force them), only what everybody, whether they want to exercise it or
not, deserve to have it and what nobody should have the power to deny
others' freedom of speech.

The question of certain freedom being essential or not isn't about
number of people for whom it means something or means nothing.  It is
about why this freedom is meaningful for those who need it and why it
may become meaningful for others.  Increasing number of people who
realize importance of certain freedom is one of the ways to promote and
defend it, but this number by itself isn't the ultimate measure of its
importance.
-- 
Fedor.