On 2019-06-08 18:11:28 +0800 (+0800), Aron Xu wrote: > On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 5:33 PM Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org> wrote: > > On 8 Jun 2019, at 10:56, Aron Xu <aron@debian.org> wrote: > > > Even further, it's distributed in the form of dkms source and > > > theoretically not in Debian (contrib) to save people of > > > Software Freedom Conservancy from being upset about losing > > > their position of Linux GPL enforcement. > > > > I don’t care much about the rest, I said what I wanted to say, > > but I strongly disagree with this statement. It’s both untrue > > and very rude. > > > > We (the Debian community) care about the software freedom and > > associated licensing because we care “the software freedom”, not > > to please or displease some people that deeply care about the > > same/similar thing. > > There's no point to be rude from me because I was on the table > when the face to face discussion happened. We care about software > freedom and we have agreed that we choose to keep SFC's position > for the good of free software ecology, so in turn we agreed to > ship ZFS in contrib (which is not an official part of Debian) for > the best of our users and community. [...] Your earlier message also implied the motives behind Conservancy's recommendations to be something other than a desire to protect projects relying on free/libre open source software licenses from making costly mistakes. Suggesting that their interpretation of these licenses is driven by an ulterior motive strikes me as a gross mischaracterization, particularly in light of the ways in which they (individually and collectively) have demonstrated a dedication to core values of software freedom over the years. To be clear, I seriously doubt Conservancy (or more precisely, the fine individuals within Conservancy involved in debating this topic over the years) would have been "upset" if Debian chose to act counter to their opinions. I'm quite sure they know that they don't control the choices of the Debian community, and are therefore not responsible for any additional risk that Debian knowingly takes on itself or passes on to its users. If they're going to be upset by anything, I expect it's projects unknowingly making poor choices which might otherwise have been avoided if only someone had given them some guidance. That they are passionate and steadfast in arguing their points is laudable, and does not itself indicate a lack of good judgement. The phrasing in your latest reply continues to paint the decision to ship ZFS in contrib as a compromise between Debian and Conservancy, rather than Debian making an informed choice based on advice from Conservancy (and others). Your apparent disagreement with the result comes across as though you're implying an adversarial relationship between Debian and Conservancy which I sincerely hope does not reflect the feelings of the community as a whole. As Harry Tuttle once said, "we're all in it together." -- Jeremy Stanley
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature