> Rationalizations about "getting the job done" or "ease of use" are the same as saying macOS has a better UI than a given GNU/Linux distro, and that's why it's OK Apple sends third party app usage data without you knowing.

This is patently false. It's not a "rationalization" to say "there is no 'free' tool that gets the job done". It is in fact the most important criterion: we need to be able to teach students, in a way that doesn't hurt any more than the situation already is. We need to help schools deal with extremely limited IT budgets without hurting any more than they already are.

If there are free and proprietary tools that get the job done just as well (including ease of use, cost of maintenance, accessibility and others), then it's ok to ask schools to standardize on the free tools. If the free tools are worse at the actual job than the proprietary tools, then it would UNETHICAL for schools to insist on the inferior choice. Of course, if it is the other way around, if the proprietary software is inferior for the purpose, then it is equally unethical to push for that!

However, none of this makes it ok for the proprietary tools to hurt their users' privacy, like the Apple tools were. In fact, it makes it even worse.

> However, none of this makes it ok for the proprietary tools to hurt their users' privacy, like the Apple tools were. In fact, it makes it even worse.

How would anyone know, especially when more and more software becomes cloud based apps, there is no way to make an informed decision.

Students lack control over the software they use because schools need them to stay on task in the classroom, to enforce behavior norms on their interactions with each other, and to avoid facilitating access to adult content. These factors are intrinsic to K12 and will not change just because the software is open source. That freedom accrues to administrators, not end users.

Their point is that if the Free Software solution is far inferior to the non-Free solution, it doesn't seem right to harm the students' education in the name of ideology.

I'm not disputing the validity of the ideological point here, but it isn't enough. The Free Software solution needs to be genuinely competitive.

> The struggle for agency and control in today's world isn't a light one, and it involves sacrifices.

But whose sacrifices? The blind kid who has shitty screen reader integration? The overworked professor who can't deal with your LMS integration? Why not ask the users whether they would prefer to use the FLOSS applications? You might be surprised when they say no.

My teachers almost universally prefer Canvas Instructure (AGPLv3 free software) to Google Classroom. It gives them far more power and freedom to build courses.

Granted, it has a terrible UX for students. But since it is free software, it gave me freedom to build my own interface by providing an API– unlike Google Classroom– which I used to build a better interface to view my due quizzes. I can then share this software with my fellow students, promoting the values of sharing.

But is it because it is AGPL? My wife is a professor who also uses Canvas. She knows how to program. If I turned to her right now and asked what AGPL was or what Canvas' license was she wouldn't know nor would she care. If I asked her how she'd start modifying Canvas to solve her problems she'd tell me she is already way too busy and isn't going to try something like that in a million years.

The point is that this software needs to compete by being better software, not by convincing people that FLOSS applications are morally righteous.

What percentage of faculty members have ever modified the source for Canvas? I'd wager it is less than 1/10,000th.

> It gives them far more power and freedom to build courses.

This is a sign of a good UX.

One impactful thing the FSF could do is create a case study the history and incentive structure of this project and extract lessons on how to structure other projects well.

> it has a terrible UX for students.

Just to check: Do you mean that it is frustrating UX or that it is unattractive? People often think that UX means graphic design.