On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 11:50:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > I don't really think that is a good explanation. I have not noticed > any instances of the mentality you describe here. Rather, the vibe I > get is mostly something like > > a) Non-free equals EVIL > > b) Package <FOO> is really nifty and does not feel evil to me. > > c) A lot of users feel that <FOO> is a necessary thing to have. > > d) If we apply the DFSG consistently, <FOO> will end up in non-free. > > e) That will make the users from (c) add non-free to their sources.list > > f) By (a), adding non-free to sources.list is an EVIL deed. > > g) Thus, applying the DFSG consistently will result in Debian > inciting people to do EVIL, which is EVIL in itself. > > h) Plus, users with a proper sense of morals will switch from Debian > to some other OS, where they can get <FOO> without being EVIL. > > Pinpointing the flaws in this argumentation is left as an exercise for > the reader. You make a plausible case. My biggest problem is with premise A). I do not think that is a position Debian should endorse. It's fine if some of our developers feel that way, but I do not think it is appropriate for the Project as a whole to uphold this position. The establishment -- or, more precisely, expansion -- of a moral orthodoxy can be highly disruptive to the integrity of a community. Non-free software may not be evil, but: * Its success often comes as the expense of Free Software. * It is ancillary to Debian's mission, which is to create a 100% Free operating system. To analogize, IMO non-free software is like a recreational drug. As a libertarian-minded person, I have no fundamental problem with people indulging in recreational drugs, but I insist that they not harm others (a standard most proprietary software companies do not meet), and I urge people to exercise moderation and deliberation when they indulge. It's fine every once in a while to subordinate your free will a little bit to external influences if it makes you a happier person. Debian's commitment to freedom is in service of the user's ability to control his or her own computer -- and by extension his or her own life. As such, non-free software impedes that commitment. Thus my critique of "w4r3z d00dz". I recognize a person's right to stock their home with a cornucopia of recreational pharmaceutics if they like, but that doesn't mean I think it's a prudent thing to do, and it is not Debian's purpose to encourage such activity. In pursuing our goals, we must combat both intolerance and injudiciousness. That's what *I* would call "pragmatism". -- G. Branden Robinson | Any man who does not realize that Debian GNU/Linux | he is half an animal is only half a branden@debian.org | man. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Thornton Wilder
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature