[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Screw non-free.

Bruce, you have layn claim to authorship of the Debian Social Contract
previously, can you please clarify your position wrt ean's comments


On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 12:21, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> The Social Contract itself is the result of a charged discussion that _I_ had 
> at USENIX with Robert Young (long ago CEO of Red Hat) about what _I_ wanted 
> in a Linux distribution.
> I argued that when someone chooses an operating system they give power 
> (economic and ideological) to the organization they choose. Free Software is 
> an ideology and any organization that purports to be a Free Software 
> distributor owes its users a promise to support that ideology. 
> I told Bob that I didn't want to get bait and switched. I didn't want to give 
> my economic power to some organization that was just going to cash in when 
> they got the chance. I said that Red Hat should promise me that code they 
> wrote would always be under the GPL. Bob told me that such a policy would be 
> the "kiss of death" for Red Hat. 
> That discussion set me solidly on the track of supporting Debian from then on 
> and it formed the basis for the discussions that became the Social Contract 
> and then the Debian Free Software Guidelines and then the Open Source 
> definition and so on.
> If you value the Social Contract and like what is says then keep in mind that 
> it first rolled off my tongue.
> At that discussion the priority was this:
> - Make sure the code, all of it, is Free so that we are not cheated out of our 
> rightful control as the stakeholders.
> - Make sure that the organization does not lie, or hide its problems, or 
> deceive its constituents.
> - Make sure that people can use the software for any purpose including 
> commercial use as long as the above core trusts are not violated.
> Non-free and contrib crept in as a matter of convenience. At the time the vast 
> majority of people could not download something as big as Debian so their 
> importance was discounted. Those times are passing and we need to come to 
> terms with where we came from so that we can firmly perceive where we are 
> headed.
> Debian is Free. Support does not mean distribution. If an organization or an 
> author is not kind enough to give us what we consider a Free license then we 
> should not show them the kindness of distributing their work. We won't 
> purposefully break or thwart the use of their software but we shouldn't 
> distribute it. That goes for anybody, right up to Richard Stallman.
> Keep Debian Free. No non-free in Debian.
> On Thursday 11 March 2004 18:40, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > _You_ have personally agreed that _you_ will support the Debian users
> > who run non-free software on Debian by becoming a Debian developer.
> -- 
> Ean Schuessler, CTO
> Brainfood, Inc.
> http://www.brainfood.com
* Debian Enterprise: http://debian-enterprise.org/
* Homepage: http://soulsound.net/
* PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc
* Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.

Reply to: