On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 07:22:40AM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> It seems that every couple years people get it in to their head that
> Debian should only support that which is DFSG and actively renounce
> everything else.
That is a frank distortion of what John's GR says. John's GR leaves
intact the language in the Social Contract that says:
We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on
Debian, but we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free
software.
This is not an "active renunciation" of anything. It is an
acknowledgement that it is not Debian's mission to distribute things
that are not Free Software.
> It's fine to support free software and encourage people to use it, but
> bashing those that disagree with you has never been a particularly
> good way to accomplish those results.
I agree. Calling people "bigots"[1] and "zealots"[2] is
counterproductive.
> Let the unbelievers walk with you and hopefully convert them along the
> path.
It appears that this approach has been unsuccessful[3]; over time,
Debian has distributed more and more non-free software.
> Dropping non-free would not help Debian. Most users and few companies
> are really concerned with the copyright on the packages they use as
> long as they get the job done.
I assume you mean that most users are *not* really concerned with the
copyright on the packages?
At any rate, the state of the world today requires that Debian itself be
concerned with copyrights and such if we are to be able to meaningfully
promote "Free Software" as our Social Contract says we will.
Even if our users aren't.
In fact, that we have Debian "main" makes it *possible* for a lot of our
users to be less concerned with licensing than they otherwise would be.
They are certain freedoms that they can take more or less for granted
(though no sane lawyer would advise them to), because we do the hard
work of attempting to ensure that packages in main are licensed freely.
> If you remove those things from Debian, then those users will soon go
> to a distribution that gives them what they want.
What if no distribution *does* give them whay they want? What if they
have to get non-free packages from some third party? Will they
uninstall Debian just out of spite, and either do without the non-free
software entirely, or retrieve it themselves?
> Now, some people will say "Good Riddence" to them, but that's akin to
> cutting off your nose to spite your face.
*IF* such users actually impede our ability to promote Free Software
(which is a priority of ours, as our Social Contract states), then being
"rid" of such users would not necessarily be determental to us.
While I am not sure that it is true that users of the Debian non-free
section of the archive do actually have this impact, it is a possibility
that you seem to be completely ignoring.
> Don't let personal biases keep from making the best possible product
> for your customers.
I agree. Debian should not let personal biases stop us from creating
the best possible product that is 100% Free Software, as point one of
the Debian Social Contract directs us to do.
> We've already got enough fanatacism in the world today; we don't need
> it here.
Aside from a bit of emotionalism, mostly restricted to charges of
"bigotry" and "zealotry" (see above) on the part of opponents of the GR,
I haven't seen anything approaching fanaticism.
I have seen a concern with a mission creep, and a concern with people not
understanding what Debian stands for.
> I've had people bitch at me because I have packages that are
> not GPL. Indeed! They're in the public domain! (Which, for those who
> aren't familiar with it, is even more "free" than the GPL.)
What have those people to do with the proponents of this General
Resolution? Is everyone who has ever disagreed with you or something
you've done involved in a vast, monolithic conspiracy to upset you?
At any rate, if you feel that the Debian Social Contract should be
amended to more accurately reflect the arrangement of priorities that
you think Debian actually has, you should propose an amendment to John's
General Resolution. If he rejects it and if your amended form of the GR
acquires enough seconds, it will appear as an option on the ballot.
[1] Message-ID: <[🔎] 20021113034601.GC4733@taz.net.au>
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20021113040549.GE4733@taz.net.au>
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20021113035550.GD4733@taz.net.au>
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20021114154102.GA29744@aokiconsulting.com>
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20021115132532.GB15983@silly.cloud.net.au>
[2] Message-ID: <[🔎] 20021113034601.GC4733@taz.net.au>
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20021113040549.GE4733@taz.net.au>
Message-ID: <[🔎] 3DD3E948.8040605@mindspring.com>
[3] Message-ID: <[🔎] 20021114103645.GA943@kleinmann.com>
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20021115040651.GB32282@azure.humbug.org.au>
--
G. Branden Robinson | "I came, I saw, she conquered."
Debian GNU/Linux | The original Latin seems to have
branden@debian.org | been garbled.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
Attachment:
pgpg4Zvix6JUQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature