[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Hypocrisy of Debian

Well, I've been reading the responses and I'm sorry for starting all
of this. I don't like this kind of discussions, they deeply depress
me, but it just happens that lately I'm getting involved frequently on
many of them. I want to say some things.

I hereby say that, in my subjective point of view, current Debian
Social Contract and policy are made of high quantities of hypocrisy. I
know this word may hurt some people, but it is not intended as a
insult. I acknowledge there are many people working hard to make fixes
[1], and even people who disagree with the importance of those bugs
appear to have their own reasons to do that. So, I don't think that
the word hypocrisy should be directed to a person in particular; I
just see that the result of Debian as a whole does not match with my
desired level of "purity", this is a fact in my point of view.

Although clarified, I maintain my claims about hypocrisy. I absolutely
don't want anybody to feel insulted, but in case anybody does, I can
only say that I'm honestly sorry very much for hurting you, but my
claims are maintained. I also want to present my apologies for being
too strong in some of my messages. Some of my neurons got tickled, and
they are the ones that carry my deep fundamental and basics ethics.

Maybe I'm too serious about topics like copyright, laws, free
software, DFSG... but I can't change my mind (and not sure if I want
to). I can't see any exceptions in the current policy for free
software, and neither I see particular cases where it should be
relaxed [2]. That is the reason for myself being happy, until now,
with Debian; the rigid position for non-free and free software just
fits well into my mind.

Certainly, I would prefer things to not follow this path, but if most
people thinks that it is OK to get relaxed under certain
circumstances, all I can say is that an official clarification for all
those circumstances is much appreciated (like the one that it is
currently for firmware).

I'm not only referring to this particular bug. I've found one string
on one file that appears to be sufficient for everybody to agree in
the priority. More generally, I'm referring to any other case, like
giving priority to release in time, license incompatibilities, how
much time a package should be allowed in main with the bug unresolved,
how serious is not give credit for data or to suspect about the
procedence... all should be documented, please. This way, maybe I
would not agree with the policy, but at least I would feel it is
sincere, which is probably the main concern for myself in this moment.

I know of at least 5 more packages under the situation that we can
call "unclear". I'm currently so much depressed to continue with the
goals I've previously posted here [3], but other people can continue
if they want, it is not hard to find those cases on packages that
contain icons, textures or sounds.


[1] There are many positive examples. This bug in particular looks
very similar to the one I reported:
[2] At least I have not found them, or I do not correctly interpreted
them in case they exists.
[3]  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/08/msg00124.html

Reply to: