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