"What I Want" is just as much a "religion" as is pursuing software freedom for its own sake (a position often, and erroneously, called religious). Software freedom just works for me (and apparently millions of others).
No, because I don't trust those organizations so their audits mean nothing to me. I wouldn't even trust them to tell me the full scope of their audits nor would I trust them to tell me if something turned up that they were unsatisfied with. I do trust my own code inspection abilities and when I paid others to do comparable work, I trusted them. I trust the free software community to inspect and fix things therefore I run free software on my computers. Using S/MIME and PGP encrypted messages atop proprietary software won't give Blackberry users software freedom. Proprietary software remains untrustworthy and Blackberry's proprietary software is no exception.
Proprietary encryption, like any other proprietary software, is untrustworthy. You don't really know what you have or who can read the encrypted data when it's encrypted with proprietary software.
It sounds like Magnatune is for you. I can't speak to item #5 ("Quality sound. Not this poorly-engineered stuff that's merely designed to be "louder" on radio, but instead music that is designed to sound great and which faithfully reproduces the art."). But Magnatune is merely a licensee; the artist licenses Magnatune to distribute their works. So I think it's a pretty good bet that the artist has mixed the recording so that you'll get what the artist considers good enough to represent their work.
I'd also add:
I can preview the entire catalog online with my favorite music player(s) in free formats (so I don't have to give up my software freedom).
I can get copies of the tracks I buy from the distributor forever, not a pre-determined limited number of restores.
I can pay in accordance with the license I'm paying for—commercial use licenses can cost more.
I can share verbatim non-commercial copies with my friends as friends do.
Your complaints should be measured against the other persistent reframing of software freedom Free Software activists also hear from those who don't see problems with proprietary software: choice. The hypocrisy of choice where the pursuit of software freedom is not a valid choice.
I know what won't change society to increase software freedom: placating proprietors. So far the FSF's mindset has been the most significant source of change: the GPL and development of GNU software are two incredibly important things in the world of computing. And the way they get done isn't by giving up.
If you view advocates of proprietary software not through the lens of "technology" but through the lens of "religion" you arrive at the same conclusion: with proprietary software you abstain from asserting your ability to control your computer or have anyone but the proprietor control it for you. You aren't choosing the best technology as plenty of proprietary software has bugs which go unfixed, even after sometimes costly "upgrades". DRM, proprietary software secrecy, and serving as an intellectual bodyguard for those who would prohibit you from being nice to other people by sharing, or ($SAVIOUR forbid) retain control over your own computing life are the hallmarks of effective proprietors (we shouldn't complain about Apple's lack of software freedom because some people like the system enough to buy their computers, or we dare not highlight how ineffective our railing against Microsoft is while their OSes are the world's most popular, and that's just two johnny-come-lately proprietors for those who have been following computing since it began). So, the kind of control you want in other areas of life (you wouldn't buy a proprietary plumbing system for your new house, you wouldn't buy a car with the hood welded shut, you wouldn't choose an electrical system only one electrician could fix even though you're not a plumber, mechanic, or electrician yourself) is the kind of control you vow to never assert in the proprietary religion.
See how these religious-based attacks never really get into deeper issues and use name-calling as a substitute for explaining the differences between philosophies?
It's no less "ethical promoting" to distribute proprietary software and claim that that is necessary. It's totally appropriate to judge whether proprietary software is ethical.
For both your questions, the links to these statements appeared (more than once) off the numerous articles about the GPL that we've had here on Slashdot over the years. I tend to follow these topics closely.
It would help us to better understand the claims in this thread if we had specific quotes for both Stallman and Moglen's alleged statements rather than vague recollections and broad generalizations. We don't know what you have read.
[...] even Richard Stallman has conceded that legally, dynamic linking cannot ever be derivation but only mere usage. No doubt Eben put him straight on that.
Where would I find Richard Stallman saying this? Where would I find Eben Moglen talking about this? In other words, what's your source?
You don't mean a "commercial" license. The GPL is a commercial license. Commerce is done with software licensed under the GPL. You mean something else, perhaps "proprietary".
In any event you haven't explained what is so bad about the GPL or that you understand the licenses you deal with (any of them) to warrant such trust in these other more permissive licenses or licenses you erroneously referred to as "commercial".
Large corporations (which probably do way more business than you or whomever you're speaking for) don't have that problem. Reasonable business operators recognize that you should not be "confident to use" any software without complete understanding of the terms of the relevant licenses. This goes for any software license. In this way the new BSD license is deceptively simple and framing this issue as though it only affected the GPL is unfair.
More to your point: Microsoft's "Core Fonts" were never Free Software. The license for those fonts always prevented making derivative works (very handy when your language and usage isn't taken into consideration) which kills its chance of being Free Software. There are other restrictions which prohibit them from being considered Free Software as well. Those fonts are merely distributable non-commercially and verbatim (including the cumbersome packaging in which they were initially made available). So, as you said, Microsoft quite literally released some fonts.
As a practical matter, Java is an extra and for some programs which depend on certain Java features only the previously non-free Sun JRE would actually work. Not requiring an extra download or install is usually viewed as a good thing as it works 'out of the box'.
The more important question before you is why must it be "ground shaking" to deserve praise and eager anticipation of good things to come? How does your description help us put this change in Firefox into context except to suggest some kind of diminution of importance? Lots of great things we have today started small. Fortunately someone was bold enough to take significant steps in the right direction so others could follow. Hackers working on editing, distributing, transcoding free media (particularly as free software so we can all run, share, and improve that work) are taking those steps and we should be genuinely grateful for their effort not damning with faint praise.
Clearly I should have been complaining about the future. A future where DRM renders your purchases obsolete because you don't really control what you own no matter what your computer-related skill or access to skilled software hackers. If you dare to try to control your own purchases laws are passed which render your work illegal to share or perhaps even own and use. So since you're so interested in productive argument, I certainly hope you're participating in activism to challenge these laws.
Complaining about the past has merit as that's how we learn not to repeat the bad things in the past.
As for what's wrong with MP3s: I'd rather get full-quality recordings like what I've bought in CD form.
I have yet to see the evidence that unambiguously distinguishes doing the right thing by the customer from cleaning up after a PR problem (as people invariably complain about when they learn their DRM'd files stop working; oh, but I forgot that purchase was made in the past and is therefore off-limits for complaining about).
So yes, this is good news. But until there's more content to actually view using this - and that necessitates better production-side software - it's not all that big of a deal.
Considering that nothing comes immediately with all the programs you need to make it fully useful, this is a big deal and pushes the momentum toward a free and open web considerably.
No they didn't do the right thing. The right thing is to offer DRM-free music in a variety of formats (lossless included) in the first place under a license that allows non-commercial and verbatim sharing. Their decision to sell DRM-riddled music wasn't an accident, it wasn't a mistake that they're now rectifying to make amends. They're offering this to not look so bad in the eyes of the non-critical listeners who are too timid to ask for not being screwed in the first place.
When Yahoo! says "But Davis said Yahoo opted to shut down its system to avoid "delaying the inevitable." keep in mind that it's these same proprietors who said DRM was inevitable and we had all just better get used to it. It's not working out for them and they're running from DRM like rats from a sinking ship. Don't let them forget that they were ready to sell your interests (in actually doing reasonable things with media you purchased) down the river.
I don't know of such a thing, but I can address some of those concerns with regard to the Internet Archive—I do know that the Internet Archive will (by default) derive video and audio files for you. If you don't like anything it derives you can hide the file so it's unavailable for download. If you want to add to the collection of files under an entry, you can also do that.
I suggest uploading the highest-quality source material you can and letting IA derive and host lesser files. So upload 24-bit FLACs, WAV, or AIFF files and let IA make Ogg Vorbis and various MP3 files for you. Upload MPEG-2 broadcast-quality movies and let IA make Ogg Vorbis + Theora, Flash, and other movie files for you. Then always link to the "download" URLs (BBB DVD ISO in NTSC format, for instance). Never link to the redirected URL because IA may need to move things around and it will keep the download URLs up to date for you.
I'm doing these things with the Big Buck Bunny entry: as I get more BBB stuff, I add to the entry. Some of the files the system made were unnecessary and derived from files it doesn't understand (like making animations from ISO DVD images).
I seriously see no reason to host with YouTube when IA is so generous in its hosting. Most people won't care where the movie comes from, only that it can be viewed easily. IA does that and far more desirable stuff for you gratis.
And what, in your opinion, should society not sacrifice in pursuit of profit? We designed the corporate system to behave as an amoral shark, but that doesn't mean that design is appropriate and that the costs can be pushed aside.
Host your video somewhere else, upload it in a high-quality format, and let the site make derivatives for you (including a Flash video and a player you can embed in your webpage if you insist on placating a proprietor). Some organizations do this daily and it works excellently. YouTube needs you more than you need YouTube.
Stallman is a great man, IMHO, but he has a marketing and image problem: very few non-technical people have the first clue as to what Free Software means. Most think it means "freeware".
But Open Source doesn't have that problem; many who don't know source code from Shinola do understand what Open Source is all about.
I'm not actually objecting to most of your post. I merely wanted to point out that the essay you refer to (which is probably the most underrated essay in their collection, to my way of thinking; I'm frequently citing parts of that essay and its revised version on/.) cites examples where the phrase "Open Source" is misunderstood, here's one:
However, the obvious meaning for the expression "open source software" is "You can look at the source code." This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).
That obvious meaning for "open source" is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined "open source": "Linux is "open source" software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files."
So for me "Open Source" is no more clear than "Free Software" but Open Source is more widely repeated because it is more malleable and thus business-friendly: that movement has been non-critical about people using the phrase to mean a variety of things, some of which don't seem to agree with what that group intended to accomplish. So long as the phrase "Open Source" is even vaguely understood to convey something beneficial, businesses like being associated with "Open Source". They like the association because it means that businesses can contort that phrase into something which gives its advocates and would-be customers warm fuzzies while delivering something that does not benefit users or the community (for example DRM -- some people actually think an "Open Source" DRM would be a good thing(!), distributing a GNU/Linux system with proprietary software in it by default, etc.). It's not common to find businesses who will tell you they are Free Software businesses (mine was one: I developed, distributed, and gave discounts to people who dealt with Free Software).
When I hosted a call-in radio program focused on Free Software issues I found it to be no problem to explain to people what software freedom meant. But I noticed that Americans were more insistent on discussing zero price instead of freedoms (you might find this odd since America is often billed as the "land of the free"), and some listeners insisted that zero-cost was the most important thing about Free Software. So I patiently explained to them that Free Software isn't necessarily zero-cost and that there are ugly consequences of focusing on zero-cost (I'm sure you already know this, no need to cover it further), and how they wouldn't tolerate such restrictions in other areas of their life (a free car with a hood or gas cap they couldn't open without being called a "pirate" and risking being hauled into court, or a house with a plumbing system that could only be repaired by one plumbing group because the pipes are proprietary). Most people aren't mechanics, engineers, plumbers, lawyers, or doctors, but most people wouldn't want those with an inclination to do those jobs to be restricted by proprietary licensing of information.
Software freedom has not to do with choice nor with forcing people to use or run software. It is the software proprietors who are trying to control what software you can use (theirs, not competitors), how you use it (digital restrictions management), and what you're allowed to do with the software should you get a copy of it (via restrictive licensing).
Software freedom has to do with giving people the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify all published computer software. If a job needs to be done with a computer, a free software activist will endorse using or writing a free software program to do that job.
Software freedom activists explain these freedoms in compelling ways so as to convince others to run (and develop, if one is so inclined) only free software. Software freedom activists value social solidarity and see the control proprietors try to impose as unethical and a social ill. The way to combat this social ill is to teach people that we should value our freedom and work to protect it.
The problem with software choice is that it attempts to that free software (which respects your freedoms and encourages social solidarity) and proprietary software (which treats you as a subordinate and prevents you from organizing with your fellows) are equals when in fact they are opposites.
We should care how people are treated and what freedoms they have. We should value our software freedom for its own sake and act accordingly.
You don't think it's difficult because you're not addressing fundamental problems with so-called e-voting.
If I let you vote in such a way that you can verify your own vote later, I have also allowed someone else to verify your vote. This means someone can strongarm you out of whatever information they need to make sure you voted a certain way. Bullying voters leads to purchasing votes and forcing people to vote against their will. With anonymous voting only you know how you really voted, you can lie to anyone else you want or decide not to tell them anything and nobody will be the wiser.
Relatedly, if I let you vote from the website (in addition to verifying your vote there), your vote is meaningless. Currently any form of voting outside of visiting a polling place faces this same problem: how can other voters know you weren't pressured (maybe by an abusive roommate or spouse) into your vote? As more people vote from a distance this raises problems for trusting the authenticity of people's votes. In the booth you can choose to go in alone, vote your will, and leave. You have other people around you (polling place workers, other voters) which one would hope reduces the chance that someone will stand over you telling you how to vote and watching you make that vote.
I'm not sure that I understand your complaint. Auditing elections takes time, whether you do it alone or with others. I don't see a reasonable objection to putting in the effort to get the job done.
The advantage to auditing from voter-verified paper ballots is that such audits are possible. DRE (direct recording equipment) make such auditing impossible because you can't compare what some voter-verified component said versus what was counted.
Computers are great for preparing voter-verified paper ballots. They have many advantages to address real needs for illiterate and blind voters, polling places that handle ballots in diverse districts (where ballots aren't the same), and they can be programmed by free software hackers so counties can leverage competition among programmers (doing this will prove to be mostly a matter of getting the money to clear state certification examinations which are largely black box tests).
I don't have to trust the voting machine if all it does is prepare a voter-verified paper ballot which I manually spoil (return to the election judges) or register as my vote (usually deposit in a big box to be collected and counted later). Human counting doesn't have to be infallible, the ballots need to be voter-verified and recorded on something that can be recounted for any reason.
Another good place to check for legally redistributable works is The Internet Archive, one of the most important sites on the Internet.
They host a lot of things across a wide spectrum of interests. They are the place hosting the digital archives for organizations that frequently publish new work (such as news programs and audio labels). Big files are okay there as well: You might be interested in a copy of the DVDs for "Big Buck Bunny" (most of the material on the DVDs are licensed CC-BY 3.0), The Story of Stuff (my copy of this came with a signed note that said I should "Feel free to copy and share it freely for any non-commercial use".
I think the Foundation's money source (Microsoft's illegal leveraging of their monopolies around the world) is very much a part of this debate, particularly if you believe that "the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has done and continues to do good things to improve people's lives". I understand that some US states have laws which prevent relatively low-rent criminals from commercially exploiting their criminal behavior (such as selling their stories). We ought to at least be concerned when heads of illegal companies use their ill-gotten gain on an international multi-billion dollar scale, one which apparently feeds the drug patent juggernauts. Those juggernauts oppose the interests of the people who need life-saving drugs. One of the greatest triumphs of the modern corporate-friendly age is convincing people that it's wise to not look at the bigger picture.
Slashdot Mirror
"What I Want" is just as much a "religion" as is pursuing software freedom for its own sake (a position often, and erroneously, called religious). Software freedom just works for me (and apparently millions of others).
No, because I don't trust those organizations so their audits mean nothing to me. I wouldn't even trust them to tell me the full scope of their audits nor would I trust them to tell me if something turned up that they were unsatisfied with. I do trust my own code inspection abilities and when I paid others to do comparable work, I trusted them. I trust the free software community to inspect and fix things therefore I run free software on my computers. Using S/MIME and PGP encrypted messages atop proprietary software won't give Blackberry users software freedom. Proprietary software remains untrustworthy and Blackberry's proprietary software is no exception.
Proprietary encryption, like any other proprietary software, is untrustworthy. You don't really know what you have or who can read the encrypted data when it's encrypted with proprietary software.
It sounds like Magnatune is for you. I can't speak to item #5 ("Quality sound. Not this poorly-engineered stuff that's merely designed to be "louder" on radio, but instead music that is designed to sound great and which faithfully reproduces the art."). But Magnatune is merely a licensee; the artist licenses Magnatune to distribute their works. So I think it's a pretty good bet that the artist has mixed the recording so that you'll get what the artist considers good enough to represent their work.
I'd also add:
Your complaints should be measured against the other persistent reframing of software freedom Free Software activists also hear from those who don't see problems with proprietary software: choice. The hypocrisy of choice where the pursuit of software freedom is not a valid choice.
I know what won't change society to increase software freedom: placating proprietors. So far the FSF's mindset has been the most significant source of change: the GPL and development of GNU software are two incredibly important things in the world of computing. And the way they get done isn't by giving up.
If you view advocates of proprietary software not through the lens of "technology" but through the lens of "religion" you arrive at the same conclusion: with proprietary software you abstain from asserting your ability to control your computer or have anyone but the proprietor control it for you. You aren't choosing the best technology as plenty of proprietary software has bugs which go unfixed, even after sometimes costly "upgrades". DRM, proprietary software secrecy, and serving as an intellectual bodyguard for those who would prohibit you from being nice to other people by sharing, or ($SAVIOUR forbid) retain control over your own computing life are the hallmarks of effective proprietors (we shouldn't complain about Apple's lack of software freedom because some people like the system enough to buy their computers, or we dare not highlight how ineffective our railing against Microsoft is while their OSes are the world's most popular, and that's just two johnny-come-lately proprietors for those who have been following computing since it began). So, the kind of control you want in other areas of life (you wouldn't buy a proprietary plumbing system for your new house, you wouldn't buy a car with the hood welded shut, you wouldn't choose an electrical system only one electrician could fix even though you're not a plumber, mechanic, or electrician yourself) is the kind of control you vow to never assert in the proprietary religion.
See how these religious-based attacks never really get into deeper issues and use name-calling as a substitute for explaining the differences between philosophies?
It's no less "ethical promoting" to distribute proprietary software and claim that that is necessary. It's totally appropriate to judge whether proprietary software is ethical.
It would help us to better understand the claims in this thread if we had specific quotes for both Stallman and Moglen's alleged statements rather than vague recollections and broad generalizations. We don't know what you have read.
Where would I find Richard Stallman saying this? Where would I find Eben Moglen talking about this? In other words, what's your source?
You don't mean a "commercial" license. The GPL is a commercial license. Commerce is done with software licensed under the GPL. You mean something else, perhaps "proprietary".
In any event you haven't explained what is so bad about the GPL or that you understand the licenses you deal with (any of them) to warrant such trust in these other more permissive licenses or licenses you erroneously referred to as "commercial".
Large corporations (which probably do way more business than you or whomever you're speaking for) don't have that problem. Reasonable business operators recognize that you should not be "confident to use" any software without complete understanding of the terms of the relevant licenses. This goes for any software license. In this way the new BSD license is deceptively simple and framing this issue as though it only affected the GPL is unfair.
More to your point: Microsoft's "Core Fonts" were never Free Software. The license for those fonts always prevented making derivative works (very handy when your language and usage isn't taken into consideration) which kills its chance of being Free Software. There are other restrictions which prohibit them from being considered Free Software as well. Those fonts are merely distributable non-commercially and verbatim (including the cumbersome packaging in which they were initially made available). So, as you said, Microsoft quite literally released some fonts.
As a practical matter, Java is an extra and for some programs which depend on certain Java features only the previously non-free Sun JRE would actually work. Not requiring an extra download or install is usually viewed as a good thing as it works 'out of the box'.
The more important question before you is why must it be "ground shaking" to deserve praise and eager anticipation of good things to come? How does your description help us put this change in Firefox into context except to suggest some kind of diminution of importance? Lots of great things we have today started small. Fortunately someone was bold enough to take significant steps in the right direction so others could follow. Hackers working on editing, distributing, transcoding free media (particularly as free software so we can all run, share, and improve that work) are taking those steps and we should be genuinely grateful for their effort not damning with faint praise.
Clearly I should have been complaining about the future. A future where DRM renders your purchases obsolete because you don't really control what you own no matter what your computer-related skill or access to skilled software hackers. If you dare to try to control your own purchases laws are passed which render your work illegal to share or perhaps even own and use. So since you're so interested in productive argument, I certainly hope you're participating in activism to challenge these laws.
Complaining about the past has merit as that's how we learn not to repeat the bad things in the past.
As for what's wrong with MP3s: I'd rather get full-quality recordings like what I've bought in CD form.
I have yet to see the evidence that unambiguously distinguishes doing the right thing by the customer from cleaning up after a PR problem (as people invariably complain about when they learn their DRM'd files stop working; oh, but I forgot that purchase was made in the past and is therefore off-limits for complaining about).
Considering that nothing comes immediately with all the programs you need to make it fully useful, this is a big deal and pushes the momentum toward a free and open web considerably.
No they didn't do the right thing. The right thing is to offer DRM-free music in a variety of formats (lossless included) in the first place under a license that allows non-commercial and verbatim sharing. Their decision to sell DRM-riddled music wasn't an accident, it wasn't a mistake that they're now rectifying to make amends. They're offering this to not look so bad in the eyes of the non-critical listeners who are too timid to ask for not being screwed in the first place.
When Yahoo! says "But Davis said Yahoo opted to shut down its system to avoid "delaying the inevitable." keep in mind that it's these same proprietors who said DRM was inevitable and we had all just better get used to it. It's not working out for them and they're running from DRM like rats from a sinking ship. Don't let them forget that they were ready to sell your interests (in actually doing reasonable things with media you purchased) down the river.
I don't know of such a thing, but I can address some of those concerns with regard to the Internet Archive—I do know that the Internet Archive will (by default) derive video and audio files for you. If you don't like anything it derives you can hide the file so it's unavailable for download. If you want to add to the collection of files under an entry, you can also do that.
I suggest uploading the highest-quality source material you can and letting IA derive and host lesser files. So upload 24-bit FLACs, WAV, or AIFF files and let IA make Ogg Vorbis and various MP3 files for you. Upload MPEG-2 broadcast-quality movies and let IA make Ogg Vorbis + Theora, Flash, and other movie files for you. Then always link to the "download" URLs (BBB DVD ISO in NTSC format, for instance). Never link to the redirected URL because IA may need to move things around and it will keep the download URLs up to date for you.
I'm doing these things with the Big Buck Bunny entry: as I get more BBB stuff, I add to the entry. Some of the files the system made were unnecessary and derived from files it doesn't understand (like making animations from ISO DVD images).
I seriously see no reason to host with YouTube when IA is so generous in its hosting. Most people won't care where the movie comes from, only that it can be viewed easily. IA does that and far more desirable stuff for you gratis.
And what, in your opinion, should society not sacrifice in pursuit of profit? We designed the corporate system to behave as an amoral shark, but that doesn't mean that design is appropriate and that the costs can be pushed aside.
Host your video somewhere else, upload it in a high-quality format, and let the site make derivatives for you (including a Flash video and a player you can embed in your webpage if you insist on placating a proprietor). Some organizations do this daily and it works excellently. YouTube needs you more than you need YouTube.
I'm not actually objecting to most of your post. I merely wanted to point out that the essay you refer to (which is probably the most underrated essay in their collection, to my way of thinking; I'm frequently citing parts of that essay and its revised version on /.) cites examples where the phrase "Open Source" is misunderstood, here's one:
So for me "Open Source" is no more clear than "Free Software" but Open Source is more widely repeated because it is more malleable and thus business-friendly: that movement has been non-critical about people using the phrase to mean a variety of things, some of which don't seem to agree with what that group intended to accomplish. So long as the phrase "Open Source" is even vaguely understood to convey something beneficial, businesses like being associated with "Open Source". They like the association because it means that businesses can contort that phrase into something which gives its advocates and would-be customers warm fuzzies while delivering something that does not benefit users or the community (for example DRM -- some people actually think an "Open Source" DRM would be a good thing(!), distributing a GNU/Linux system with proprietary software in it by default, etc.). It's not common to find businesses who will tell you they are Free Software businesses (mine was one: I developed, distributed, and gave discounts to people who dealt with Free Software).
When I hosted a call-in radio program focused on Free Software issues I found it to be no problem to explain to people what software freedom meant. But I noticed that Americans were more insistent on discussing zero price instead of freedoms (you might find this odd since America is often billed as the "land of the free"), and some listeners insisted that zero-cost was the most important thing about Free Software. So I patiently explained to them that Free Software isn't necessarily zero-cost and that there are ugly consequences of focusing on zero-cost (I'm sure you already know this, no need to cover it further), and how they wouldn't tolerate such restrictions in other areas of their life (a free car with a hood or gas cap they couldn't open without being called a "pirate" and risking being hauled into court, or a house with a plumbing system that could only be repaired by one plumbing group because the pipes are proprietary). Most people aren't mechanics, engineers, plumbers, lawyers, or doctors, but most people wouldn't want those with an inclination to do those jobs to be restricted by proprietary licensing of information.
Software freedom has not to do with choice nor with forcing people to use or run software. It is the software proprietors who are trying to control what software you can use (theirs, not competitors), how you use it (digital restrictions management), and what you're allowed to do with the software should you get a copy of it (via restrictive licensing).
Software freedom has to do with giving people the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify all published computer software. If a job needs to be done with a computer, a free software activist will endorse using or writing a free software program to do that job.
Software freedom activists explain these freedoms in compelling ways so as to convince others to run (and develop, if one is so inclined) only free software. Software freedom activists value social solidarity and see the control proprietors try to impose as unethical and a social ill. The way to combat this social ill is to teach people that we should value our freedom and work to protect it.
The problem with software choice is that it attempts to that free software (which respects your freedoms and encourages social solidarity) and proprietary software (which treats you as a subordinate and prevents you from organizing with your fellows) are equals when in fact they are opposites.
We should care how people are treated and what freedoms they have. We should value our software freedom for its own sake and act accordingly.
You don't think it's difficult because you're not addressing fundamental problems with so-called e-voting.
If I let you vote in such a way that you can verify your own vote later, I have also allowed someone else to verify your vote. This means someone can strongarm you out of whatever information they need to make sure you voted a certain way. Bullying voters leads to purchasing votes and forcing people to vote against their will. With anonymous voting only you know how you really voted, you can lie to anyone else you want or decide not to tell them anything and nobody will be the wiser.
Relatedly, if I let you vote from the website (in addition to verifying your vote there), your vote is meaningless. Currently any form of voting outside of visiting a polling place faces this same problem: how can other voters know you weren't pressured (maybe by an abusive roommate or spouse) into your vote? As more people vote from a distance this raises problems for trusting the authenticity of people's votes. In the booth you can choose to go in alone, vote your will, and leave. You have other people around you (polling place workers, other voters) which one would hope reduces the chance that someone will stand over you telling you how to vote and watching you make that vote.
I'm not sure that I understand your complaint. Auditing elections takes time, whether you do it alone or with others. I don't see a reasonable objection to putting in the effort to get the job done.
The advantage to auditing from voter-verified paper ballots is that such audits are possible. DRE (direct recording equipment) make such auditing impossible because you can't compare what some voter-verified component said versus what was counted.
Computers are great for preparing voter-verified paper ballots. They have many advantages to address real needs for illiterate and blind voters, polling places that handle ballots in diverse districts (where ballots aren't the same), and they can be programmed by free software hackers so counties can leverage competition among programmers (doing this will prove to be mostly a matter of getting the money to clear state certification examinations which are largely black box tests).
I don't have to trust the voting machine if all it does is prepare a voter-verified paper ballot which I manually spoil (return to the election judges) or register as my vote (usually deposit in a big box to be collected and counted later). Human counting doesn't have to be infallible, the ballots need to be voter-verified and recorded on something that can be recounted for any reason.
Another good place to check for legally redistributable works is The Internet Archive, one of the most important sites on the Internet.
They host a lot of things across a wide spectrum of interests. They are the place hosting the digital archives for organizations that frequently publish new work (such as news programs and audio labels). Big files are okay there as well: You might be interested in a copy of the DVDs for "Big Buck Bunny" (most of the material on the DVDs are licensed CC-BY 3.0), The Story of Stuff (my copy of this came with a signed note that said I should "Feel free to copy and share it freely for any non-commercial use".
I think the Foundation's money source (Microsoft's illegal leveraging of their monopolies around the world) is very much a part of this debate, particularly if you believe that "the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has done and continues to do good things to improve people's lives". I understand that some US states have laws which prevent relatively low-rent criminals from commercially exploiting their criminal behavior (such as selling their stories). We ought to at least be concerned when heads of illegal companies use their ill-gotten gain on an international multi-billion dollar scale, one which apparently feeds the drug patent juggernauts. Those juggernauts oppose the interests of the people who need life-saving drugs. One of the greatest triumphs of the modern corporate-friendly age is convincing people that it's wise to not look at the bigger picture.