Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:30:52AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:42:56 +0300, Riku Voipio <email@example.com> said:
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:39:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >> Non-free material is being included in main for the benefit of
> >> *precisely zero* users. There's no two ways about this: this is a
> >> Social Contract violation.
> > Kernel has 736 open bugs, including ones that corrupt data and make
> > other packages fail to build. All but one affect actual users.
> > Does the Social Contract really mandate that we should fix bugs
> > affecting 0 users before dealing with bugs that actually degrade the
> > user experience?
> I think you are framing the question in a biased manner. The
> inclusion of non-free software often does not directly impair
> operations or degrade utility for most users -- they often are not
> concerned about exercising the freedoms that are being curtailed. But
> we have common cause in promoting free software, we acknowledge that
> non-free software is harmful, and we relegate it to a a repository that
> is not part of Debian, but it exists for users who want the
> functionality and do not care about the freedom aspect.
> So, in my opinion, getting rid of the non-fee material, and
> actually conforming to our social contract is indeed worth more than
> fixing these other bugs -- how many of those are release critical, as
> this bob-free material issue is?
> There is also the factor of the social contract being our given
> word, and people trusting us -- if we can not be expected to even try
> to keep our word on the social contract, what _can_ we be trusted with?
IF you really think so, then why did you sabotage my efforts to reach a
GR which could be used as a basis to address this issue with the
hardware manufacturers last year ?