Re: GR: Removal of non-free
I just read (a large part of) the "Removal of non-free" thread, and I, as a
basic, garden-variety, Debian user, am *frightened*.
A small bit of background : I have used computers, on and off, since 1974
(yes, I'm that old). A former oral surgeon, I have done some work in
medical informatics and am presently a biostatistician. While I did a bit
of development a long time ago, I am mostly a basic computer *user* ; what
I write is for the most part a bit of statistical computation routines.
I have followed Linux since '92 (I probably still have two 3.5" floppies
wit Linux 0.07 sitting somewhere in the basement), and used Debian since
1.3 days, switching from heavily modified SLS and Slackware distributions.
I use Debian both at work and at home, primarily for it's consistency, it's
quality and the range of available applications. It gives me a very
efficient solution to my everyday problems. Furthermore, I happen to agree
that the "freedom of speech" issue about software is an exeedingly
important one. In this respect, I think that the DFSG is extremely valuable.
However, I happen to use some non-free software, and evene some non-Debian
commercial software, for practical reasons : I work in a large organization
that has standardized on Windows applications, and I HAVE TO INTERACT WITH
THE REST OF THE ORGANIZATION : I am not paid by this organization to live
in a morally irreproachable ivory tower. When free (= DFSG-compliant)
software allows me to interact, that's obviously what I do (as a side
benefit, the free application is usually better, but that's not the point).
When I receive data in a proprietary format (Access databases come to mind
...), I CANNOT demand the sender to switch : I have to cope with it, if
only to convert it to a better format.
Now, reading the thread has frightened me, for many reasons :
1) The original proponent seem to think that cutting support for non-free
software will somehow create an incitation for other, unspecified, people
to write free substitutes. While this may be at least partially true, it
may well have the undesirable side effect of turning potential users AWAY
from free software and free software distributions. No one in his right
mind would use a system that forbids him to do part of what he has to do.
As a user, I do not wish Debian to become a useless standard of reference.
2) The rhetorics used in this debate (by both sides, BTW) frighten me : I
have seen them used again and again in a lot of (European-style) political
organizations. Especially, the hair splitting on wording of the DSC reminds
me of the worse parliamentary tactics used in both American and European
chambers : using a seemingly formal amendment to get (respectively to
oppose) a deep practical change (something called "a rider" in American
parlance, IIRC) is one of the most efficient weapons of a technocracy. As a
user, I do not wish Debian to become a technocracy, not even an aristocracy.
3) The original proposition seems to me a major act of childishness : it
sums up to demanding (potential and actual) users of Debian to use *only*
whant the author feels to be "free software" in *his* understanding or to
use other software with no Debian infrastructure support at all. This,
IMNSHO, is pure, unadulterated, high-school grade,behaviour : the
(potential) user either has to 100% agree with the proponent or be left
out. That behaviour could be tolerated in kindergarten, not in polite
adults' society. As a user, I do not wish Debian to become a debating
society, nor a cult or a sect.
4) Furthermore, such behaviour may become extremely dangerous : for example
(purposely chosen extreme, I have a point to make), it has been used by
Stalin to evict from the Bolshevik party any people not totally agreeing
with him, thus making said party his tool. As a user, I do not want Debian
to become a dictatorship, even a benign one.
5) Such behaviour has also locked a lot of political organizations (left-
and right-wing, BTW) out of any real influence on the course of events :
staying on high moral ground and off the real-world responsibilities has a
lot of appeal for some leaders ... Debian might well fall in this
particular trap. As a user, I do not wish Debian to become a wailing society.
5) On the other hand, I agree that a distinction must be made between free
and non-free software. Being too lax in this respect would oversee the
whole point of Debian. As a user, I do not wish Debian to become Yet
Another Distribution.
Therefore, the whole debate seems to me both dangerous and sterile. The
present solution is not perfect, but I do not see any practical way to
change the *politics* of the situation.
However, I tend to agree that some form of free substitute to non-free
software migh be useful : users should get an incitation to use free
software replacement *provided that enough checks have proved that the
"free" solution is indeed a (drop-in) replacement for the "non-free" package*.
This might be done in technical ways. For example, inserting a notice in
the "Description" part of the relevant package : the "non-free" package
would carry a notice listing the free alternatives, the free package
carrying a list of the "non-free" packages it is a substitute to.
One might even envision a special field allowing apt, dselect and other
tools to find, on user's request, free alternatives to non-free packages.
But I would sternly oppose any proposal tending to (politically) *enforce*
such a substitution. That would require to believe that "there is no
freedom for freedom's foes" (as stated Fouquier-Tinville), and that would
be the end of what Debian aims to be. In other words, please don't force us
to be free !
Since I am not a Debian developper, I have no voting rights in this debate.
But, as a user, I still wish to be heard.
Emmanuel Charpentier
Garden-variety dummy
PS : And, oh, BTW, yes, I used rethorical tricks above. That should warn
you about the dangers of such tricks...
PPS : I am not on this list. If you wish me to read your possible answers,
please Cc me.
PPPS : About the voting system : ISTR that Condorcet has demonstrated, more
than two centuries ago, that no perfect voting system can exist for a
college of more than 3 voters. Yet, I see this subject turning on again and
again. Coudn't we learn to live with unavoidable imperfection ?
--
Emmanuel Charpentier
Reply to: