Op wo 10-09-2003, om 03:27 schreef Manoj Srivastava: > On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:17:07 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> said: > > > Op ma 08-09-2003, om 18:42 schreef Manoj Srivastava: > >> > Since our users and the DFSG are equally important, one should > >> > not try to solve one of those problems *at the cost* of the > >> > other, and *certainly* not if one is not willing to provide a > >> > solution. > >> > >> The DFSG is indeed in our users best interest -- unless you think > >> that shipping non-free in main helps the users who use those bits, > >> and thus users interest should render the DFSG irrelevant, since > >> the users can benefit. This is a deeply flawed argument. > > > So is saying that not shipping with an RFC implementation is in our > > users' best interest, or saying that holding up the release is in > > our users' best interest. > > Is it? Propreitary software can indeed provide value, and is > often useful to people -- which is why the company is in > business. And yet, we have coalesced a volunteer effort around the > premise that libre software is better. Do you mean to say that the one and only property about Debian we should be proud of is the fact that it consist of "100% free software"? Do you mean to say that the one and only goal we should pursue is to make, and keep, Debian "100% free software"? You know, that would make my life a lot easier. I could stop caring about bugs. "Shut up, you -- it's free software, you should be glad about that". > If you think that this premise is flawed, then I wonder how > you passed the philosophy section of the NM process. I passed the philosophy section of the NM process, because I agreed that our users and free software are equally important. Yes, delivering free software is in the best interest of our users. That doesn't mean it's the *only* thing which is in the best interest of our users. And since our Social Contract declares them to be equally important, at times they can be in conflict. I think this is one such occasion. > > Either way results in an action in conflict with the social > > contract. The question is: what's the least of the two evils? > > Or, who gets to decide what is the users best interest? That is another way to put it. > > That's a judgement call we have to make, and it may well be > > different if you make it, as compared to if I make it. Especially > > since it's not clearly defined anywhere what's actually 'in the best > > interest of our users'. > > As a consumer of food, my predilection as a child was > overwhelmingly in favour of fast food -- tasty, convenient, and yet, > according to my health care professional, inordinately bad for me. > > Non free software, despite its allure, is, in my opinion, bad > for the users. I agree; however, this is about more than just whether the RPC code is free or not. If that weren't the case, I wouldn't be part of this thread. > >> And you think our users are best served by non-free software? > > > Our users are best served by useful, working software. > > Even when it is not free? That's not what I said. Oh, wait, I get it. You're saying that the *only* thing we should care about is whether our software is free. All the rest is secondary, not even worth considering. I thought our users and Free Software were *equal*. No, I'm not saying we should ignore the fact that the RPC code is non-free, if that is the case. Yes, I'm saying we should take care not to over-react, and to make sure whatever action we take is in the best interest of our users. If that means to ship with non-free code in a core part of our distribution, then so be it. No, I'm not saying we should ship sarge at the set date at all cost, even if that means shipping with non-free parts inside; I'm just saying we should consider all alternatives, and do what's best for our users. Someone has to make the judgement call. It happened to be aj. If you're not happy with his decision, you're free to use the powers given to you by our constitution. Or to fix the problem, as I suggested in my original post. Although, in hindsight, I could've been a bit more polite. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org "Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation." "So is my neck, stop it anyway!" -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend