audit recommendation - dump gnucash??

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

NOTE I'm a free/libre software proponent --- and for which I respect the
Free Software Definition (free as in freedom, not price/gratis), as
written by GNU project and Free Software Foundation. As such, free/libre
software proponents have different values than the "open source"
proponents --- which, since they want to call themselves "open source"
proponents, I assume that they follow the Open Source Definition, as
kept by the Open Source Initiative.

That said, here are some arguments against these "auditors'" recomendations:

- Everyone of us can, say, agree on a contract with someone so that such
  person (or group of people) get's something fixed, or some feature
  implemented). If there is a bug that affects you, and you are willing
  to pay for someone to get it fixed, then perhaps you --- and everyone
  interested and also willing to get paid fixing it or to pay these
  people to fix it --- should work on a service agreement, even if
  temporary. This applies both for:

  - Contributors already in the GnuCash project --- which I recommend,
    since they know how to preserve the essential freedoms that the
    free/libre software movement requires.

  - Organizations or hacker groups that are local to your city or
    region. Both are a mixed bag in terms of alignment to free/libre
    software movement, but can be generally misaligned if:

    - They are for-profit organizations.

    - They start confusing us with "open source".

    - They do "openwashing" (which is the idea of saying that they
      contribute to "open source", while their "business model" is
      itself not even fully compliant with the Open Source Definition).

- Free/libre software isn't "always gratis", isn't a "black box", and
  isn't a "ready product". It can be acquired gratis --- this is not a
  requirement --- but has customization and maintainance costs, and is
  reusable/recycleable. Contrary to non-free/libre ones which fit only
  one purpose and only have a limited set of "authorized customizators"
  that work on it.

- Since computer programs can only be used by computers without these
  questioning what is wrong or not, there are only two options of
  control:

  a. Society controls the software through collective control.

  b. Someone untrusted controls the software --- this applies even if
  they prove that they are "transparent", because transparency isn't
  enough.

  And this is why the freedoms to use --- both the originals and the
  adaptations ---; study and adapt; and share and sell --- both the
  original and the adaptations --- are needed. Option (b) is non-free
  software case, and this generaly means that with (b) we can always
  assume the worst in every scenario.

  Besides, software is everywhere, such as: cellphones, voting machines
  --- where they shouldn't be ---, computers, video games, toys,
  vehicles, implantable pacemakers, milkers, medical management systems,
  academic management systems, radiotherapy machines. For some of these,
  there is evidence of non-free software presenting undesirable effects
  to the user, or to the whole society --- some cases are described at :
  [[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary.html]],
  [[http://www.cic.unb.br/~rezende/trabs/entrevistaINFO2.html]], and
  also by searching for "Unimestre Brasil" if you want a list of
  academic institutions affected by a non-free software for academic
  management which also affects students' families and teachers'
  families.

-- 
- [[https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno]]
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
  gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre, por isso não uso. Iguais a ele prefiro
  GNU Ring, ou Tox. Quer outras formas de contato? Adicione o vCard
  que está no endereço acima aos teus contatos.
- Pretende me enviar arquivos .doc, .ppt, .cdr, ou .mp3? OK, eu
  aceito, mas não repasso. Entrego apenas em formatos favoráveis ao
  /software/ livre. Favor entrar em contato em caso de dúvida.