Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
(Resending a previous private answer to Theodore since I believe it is
relevant to the discussion..)
Le Monday 29 December 2008 15:11:01 Theodore Tso, vous avez écrit :
> As I said in my recent blog entry[1], I believe that "100% free" is a
> wonderful aspirational goal --- other things being equal. However, I
> don't believe it to be something that should be Debian's Object of
> Ultimate Concern; there are other things that need to be taken into
> consideration --- for example, allowing various machines owned by
> Debian to be able to use their network cards might be a nice touch.
>
> [1] http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2008/12/28/debian-philosophy-and-people/
>
> In other words, I believe in 100% Free as a goal; but I'm not a
> fundamentalist nor a fanatic about it.
I read your post. It is interesting and well argued.
However, I have the impression that it somehow draws the picture of a
seperation between "productive pragmatic" guys and "idealist unproductive"
ones.
For instance, you could also mention all the great work the the GNU and
Stallman pioneered at there time. After all, if the pragmatic guy, Linus,
decided to go for the GPL as it was GCC's licence, it was because the
idealist one had prepared this for more than 10 years before.
Yes, pragmatism is a need when something has to happen sooner rather than
later. I, too, believe that in the case of lenny, this was an issue.
But when it comes to more general purpose, I really support the central place
of idealism. That is only this way that you can prepare and build a great
change such as the GNU fondation did.
To me, the social contract is a very good compromise. It states first an
idealist acheivement, but moderates it by some pragmatism concerning the
users. "unproductive" discussions fall into the same category, when they do
not end as flames or trolls.
That is mainly why I am against the notion of Code of Conduct.
Eventually, that is also the same vision that drives me in politics: an ideal
goal moderated by pragmatism. Not the converse.
Romain
Reply to: