Re: Dissatisfied w/Debian? Make something 'pure'.
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 09:51:34PM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > one of the reasons for our initial split with the FSF was precisely
> > that kind of intolerant fanatacism. the FSF wished to impose
> > restrictions on us and require us to do things that we did not want.
>
> It occurs to me that developers dissatisfied with Debian's toleration
> of non-free would serve the community best, not by trying to change
> Debian's character at this late date, but by working with the FSF to
> create something new and ideologically pure.
Debian's character is being changed anyway - and not by us. As developers
come and go, the collective beliefs of those developers change. When I
joined this project the average developer was idealistic about Debian, but
pragmatic enough to realize that for the average person, some piece of
non-free software was going to be necessary.
Today, the average developer is more concerned with things like beating
Mircosoft (or more commonly I think, beating Red Hat) than they are in the
DFSG. Several messages in this thread can be tied to developers who wish
to relax the DFSG so their favorite software can get into Debian.
Should Debian change because these people no longer hold to the project's
ideals? You argue that people like John should not be able to change the
project's focus like that - so why should you be able to?
> Such a new project would Make A Statement. And, more important to me,
> it would avert any further attempts to explode Debian from within.
I see two forces, both would rather tear Debian in half than see things
continue as they are today. Know what? One of them is likely to do just
that sooner or later.
> Of course, almost no one would use GNU Purity [not tm [yet]]. And it
> would always be in flux, because RMS is prone to change his definition
> of "free" from time to time.
It has nothing to do with RMS. If you think I support this because RMS
would, you are SADLY mistaken. He and I disagree on a great number of
things, starting with what defines Free Software (I take a more DFSG
approach), continuting with how distributions such as Debian should regard
non-free software (I believe we should either offer it upfront or not
offer it at all---none of this it's-there-only-if-you-ask crap), and
that's the very very beginning of our disagreements.
That said, I've watched people try to push Debian off its free software
center ever sense I joined the project. I think they've had success with
this, a bit too much success. You don't have to agree with John's GR (or
even Anthony's counter proposal for that matter..) You can think John is
a raving GPL nut. But if you think Debian should stop being so resistant
to free software, then you don't belong here.
Debian stands for free software. That's why I installed it. That's why I
use it. That's why I choose to spend my time improving it.
> But, hey, what are practical questions when dogma is involved?
I asked several practical questions. A lot of people have. An alternate
proposal has emerged which addresses those concerns (though John doesn't
support or agree with it - see raving GPL nut comment above (sorry John
heh)) and is more likely to pass.
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
<JHM> AIX - the Unix from the universe where Spock has a beard.
Reply to: