On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:09:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> I do not in any way see this poll as an indication that we should revert
> the SC change, or that we have failed (in fact, we have succeeded to a
> large extent, just not 100%) or that we are being hypocritical.
Consider comments like:
] But decontaminating Etch will finally mean Debian can keep its promise
] to its users. *Some people* actually care about Debian being 100% free,
] others don't. Last time the release team just said 'ignore it for sarge,
] we'll fix it for the next one' and now that Etch is coming around people
] are saying 'just let it through again and we'll fix it in etch+1.'
-- http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=31198#31198
Or:
] Absolutely ... delay the release. I may want some of that firmware,
] but if I do, I want it labelled "non-free" As has been noted above,
] the release date for etch is unimportant since everyone who wants it is
] using it already.
]
] As the old saying goes, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall
] for anything." Debian stands for FOSS, and that's important.
-- http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=31250#31250
Or, more to the point, articles like "Debian: too free?" (28/4/2004;
http://lwn.net/Articles/82536/) or "Resolved: firmware is not software"
(23/8/2006; http://lwn.net/Articles/196641/).
Personally, I find it absurd that we're acting in ways that mislead
people into thinking that focussing on freedom is incompatible with
producing a good system or delivering it on time.
It's exactly right to say we haven't failed -- we've made some huge
successes since sarge, and we've got more to come. But by having a social
contract that sets the bar higher than we can achieve, we keep having
these successes viewed as failures, both by ourselves and our users.
Cheers,
aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature