Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Branden> I find this a moving and fairly convincing argument up to
Branden> this point. And then, I believe, the rhetoric set in.
Thanks, I guess.
>> We offer a choice, we do not impose.
Branden> Choice versus imposition is a continuum, not a binary state.
Branden> Do you submit that the failure of a grocery store to carry a
Branden> specific item of food is an imposition upon you? But let us
Branden> have a better analogy. What about a health food store that
Branden> refuses to carry unhealthy products like fried
Branden> cheeseburgers? Are the patrons of such a store being
Branden> imposed upon?
It makes the general store not as usefule when my nephews are
in town. I would chose sometheng else. Ideally, if the subway place
had a few hamburgers, it would be nice. Or if the other fast food
places had healthier food. In either case, the plain healkth food
place is not as useful as it could be, and if it was, maybe I *would*
Branden> I support my analogy by asserting that Debian is not a
Branden> general store. We don't sell everything. In fact, we
Branden> can't. We're simply not permitted to distribute a large
Branden> volume of the software that currently exists in the world.
Disingenuous. We do not now, and yes, we never have, or
will, package all the software there is. We do now, though, package
software that this GR is asking we throw away. So forget the we
can't package it all red herring.
Branden> Debian is, instead, a store with a focus, a purpose -- like
Branden> a health food store. Our purpose, our mission, is free
Branden> software. For this fact to be unclear to anyone is either a
Branden> gross failure of perception on their part, or a gross
Branden> failure of communication on ours.
Who is we here, pale face? I certainly think we are not about
just free software. We are here to produce the best free
distribution; and that entails utility for users. We prefer free
software over non-free, but we convert people by showing that they
benefit from free software, and by giving them what choices we
can. We do not promise to give all the cvhoices there are, but we do
what we can.
Branden> I submit that there are lots and lots of places in the world
Branden> to get non-free software, or fried cheeseburgers. If Debian
Branden> decides not to carry non-free software anymore, we are not
Branden> dramatically impacting the marketplace. We do not have
Branden> monopoly power in the non-free software market. I do agree
Branden> that abandoning non-free software might work to to our own
Branden> detriment in some respects -- perhaps absolute, quantitative
I don't give a damn about the rest of the darned marketplace.
I give a darn about making Debian a viable choice for more people, in
the hopes that then they can be, umm, educated about free software.
Branden> Interestingly, after this point, all word of future
Branden> commitments vanishes, and we are left with descriptions of
Branden> the status quo. Whether these constitute promises is left
Branden> as an excercise for the reader -- but I'd remind the reader
Branden> that promises, vows, or contracts bind people to action in
Branden> the future (affidavits are documents where you swear to the
Branden> truth of events in the past or current status). When you
Branden> make marriage vows, for instance, you generally pledge to
Branden> fidelity in the future, you don't merely make an affirmation
Branden> that you're not sleeping with anyone else at the moment.
Nice wriggle. But in all honesty, that is what I think it is
-- word play to make us feel OK about going back on our word.
You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on. Dean
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C