[GNUz] comsumer activism?

[Rik Tindall]

Thanks Jim. That's the most thoughtful piece I've read in a while, tho I 
don't get to read very much.

Nick Rout wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:06:55 +0100
> Jim Cheetham wrote:
> 
>> http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/07/27/1439230&from=rss
>> Should FOSS supporters become consumer activists?
>>
>> " ... Maybe it's time for FOSS supporters to become consumer advocates.
>> In other words, perhaps they should start officially endorsing or
>> condemning companies and organizations according to how well products
>> and policies fit with FOSS ethics."
> 
> IMHO they should. I think many of us for years have been doing this,
> although many by the silent method of just trying to buy stuff that
> works, or the slightly noisier way of preaching on mailing lists and
> forums when someone asks for a hardware recommendation.

Yes, this covers a lot of activity, from our day to day FOSS community 
building through helpful advice, to http://www.defectivebydesign.org - 
where every bit input should count.

The comments provoke thought too: defining user-friendly's as "truly 
free-as-in- freedom software for their computers, that respects their 
privacy, their fair-use rights, and doesn't need a four year college 
degree in esoteric nonsense to support all the various flavors".

I agree with the title author's outlook, recognising our geek 5% as a 
socially responsible minority of great potential. This is what's brought 
me here, along with great software. There's a raft of good causes, 
summed up by 'world peace', that need help to advance. And it isn't so 
much the great influence held by technologists - derived from 
technology's social influence - but the fact that we're the toughest 
audience: the most critically contemplative audience to be won. If geeks 
can be convinced that something is a good idea, it's downhill from there :)

So the thread brings out the point of us being here, or starts to. What 
can we agree on? GNUz-Freenix seeks common tools and language, simple 
and useful things like Debian/Ubuntu sysad skills and the GPL. And these 
can't be grasped without consistent BSD exposure. So what is it we agree 
upon?  Freedom has been perfected in our movement to the point that 
there's just one thing so far: Linux (and the Internet it predominantly 
supports) is the most advanced collaborative project on Earth, and 
supportively so.

Where does difference begin after that? Linux's context. Are we Free to 
promote Linux as cost-free? Almost. Whereas RMS and greater forces would 
have us decline this privilege - through the term Free/Libre - we are 
equally Free to reject that, and to say so. In fact, I believe we must. 
Secondarily for consumer terminological simplicity, but mainly so that 
our product balances in cost that of servicing it. I don't see how we 
can sell Linux to wider success otherwise, which explains why our 5% has 
been static for so long.

We're hung up on this issue, and for too long. We need to put to rest 
any question that Linux is not FOSS, and find our third point of 
agreement beyond that..

FOSS is the boss, ref:

Software Freedom Law Center - http://www.softwarefreedom.org

Any disagreement, we need to start working it out.

cheers
-- 
Rik