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

Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free



** On Jun 11, Jeff Licquia scribbled:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 12:54:34AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > No, it isn't. I see that *right now* (and *right now* is when you created
> > your GR) there is no morally honest way to take the software from our users.
> 
> This is not at all clear.  After all, the entire argument for removing
> non-free is based on morality.
> 
> The question here is one of competing moral requirements, and the
> tension between them.  To many of us - indeed, a majority by my count
> - the current situation is immoral (perhaps not more immoral than
> depriving our users of support, but immoral nonetheless).  It's a
> "lesser of two evils" question, and those are never simple.
> 
> You may disagree as to where the "high moral ground" lies, but let's
> not make assertions about the morality of others.  That way lies
> madness.
I never questioned anybody's morality. I only questioned morality of the
situation where we're taking away something from someone (and do it by
force) without giving them anything else instead. I think it is immoral
(note: I don't say that *someone* is immoral) to deprive someone of anything
without replacing that thing with another of the same, or better, quality.

[snip]
> > succeed you will have *any* right to issue another GR, this time supported
> > by facts carved solid in stone.
> 
> He has suggested some replacements.  For the rest, there's nothing
> wrong with telling people to get it themselves if they need it.
Hmm... half of the thread was devoted to proving that it is wrong in telling
so to the users...

> After all, it's not like John is going around with a hit squad nuking
> the non-free software installed on Debian machines he finds.
I never said that.

> John's point is that our distribution of non-free software constitutes
> a tacit endorsement of that software and its license, and that the
What license? Did you see the posting with analysis of the licenses in
non-free? 

[snip]
> > I don't like that kind of attitude you represent.
> 
> I am even more opposed to the attitude you represent - namely, the
And you've got every right to be.

> attitude that believing something, and proposing something, that
> disagrees with Marek Habersack's personal views is morally repugnant.
> Stop it!
Now, I think you should sit down and count from 1 to 10 to calm down a
little bit. Then read my every post on this thread and be kind enough to
note that it wasn't my attitude. I was (and still am) expressing my point of
view, my opinion and *never* said "you fools do as I say, because I know
it's the best". 

> > You come and shout that
> > you know what is the best for our users, for developers without even trying
> > to listen to what they *really* need.
> 
> No one is suggesting that this is being done for the good of our
> users.  Everyone I've seen has been pretty clear that this has the
> potential to suck for our users, and even the best case has a lot of
> downers.
And don't you think that it contradicts the, so many times quoted, point 4
of the Social Contract that mentiones *users* as our *primary* priority (the
word "users" is put before "free software" - I think it means something)?

[snip]
> > You have your mantra and nothing else
> > matters - you're deaf to arguments, to what *users* and *developers* say.
> 
> On the contrary, John has been responding pretty well - to AJ, for
> example.  He hasn't been swayed by the arguments, but that's his
> right.  Or do you expect him to disengage his brain when confronted
> with the Word from the High Holy Cabal (or whoever)?
Do you expect *me* to do it? If not, stop accusing me as you did above.

> Should I start accusing you of fanaticism just because you haven't
> kowtowed to his vastly superior opinion?
It's a free world. Do it - I'll ignore it and won't let you provoke me to
discuss that matter. If you want to call me so, fine - that's your choice.

> > That reminds me of all those TV preachers in the USA who seem to know best
> > what people should do to be happy. That reminds me (as I wrote before) my
> > country and all the other communist country where everybody in the govt.
> > knew better what people needed, didn't care to listen to them...
> 
> "John Goerzen is as nasty as Jim Bakker and Joseph Stalin."
You clearly starting to loose your temper. Too bad, because the discussion
has *finally* started getting out of the flame (see the thread with the
compromise proposal)

> Care to finish off the debate and make the obligatory Godwin
> reference?
Care to get off my back and start making some remarks relevant to this
discussion?

> > ...and yet was
> > saying that he's doing this or that "for the people". 
> 
> Which he has never said.
I don't have quotes, but that was the *impression* I got. Words like "it
won't change anything" "It won't hurt the users" might've suggested it. I
might be wrong, though.

> > I, on the contrary,
> > think about users, about what they need,
> 
> "I, on the other hand, am pure in spirit as Mother Teresa and
> righteous as Moses on the mountain.  Fear me.  Heed me.  Think not,
> and consider not the arguments of the infidel, lest ye be consumed in
> the fires of iniquity."
Beautiful piece of prose. Is it your own or are you quoting?

> > ergo, I'm
> > against removing the non-free *now* because it hurts our users, which is in
> > contradiction with the point 4 of the Social Contract and is simply an
> > unjustified act of political selfishness. 
> 
> So far, the only demonstrably true statement you've made.
Well, everybody's got their 5 minutes once in their life... I guess it's my
prime time, isn't it? :)

> Congratulations.
Why, thank you, I'm flattered :)

> Now, let *me* put it in plain English:
> 
> No one in this debate is morally repugnant, nasty, or odious because
I never said that. It's you who used all those words above.

> they hold one position or the other on this.  They simply have
> different views on several issues, and are acting from that basis.
Well, why are you excluding me from the group of people who can have some
point of view?

> Should you stop shouting long enough to listen (maybe you've been
> listening to our users too much :-), maybe you could be enlightened a
touche ;)

> bit.  Not that you'd suddenly agree with anyone; you might, however,
> be a bit more effective in convincing people like me (who are
> undecided on the resolution and don't know how to vote yet) that your
> position is valid.
Please, take a deep breath and re-read my postings. I daresay you will find
some valid points if you put down the flame before your eyes.

> After all, ranting and raving isn't going to stop the force of the
> vote, whichever way it goes.  All that can be done is change the
No it won't, therefore stop bugging me, stop ranting and start ignoring me
and my statements (or do as I asked above and look for the valid points in
what I said before)

> direction of the vote.  And that is not done by painting your
> opponents with every moral vilification known to mortal man.
Read my response to that at the beginning of this post. And if you want to
further flame me - do it in private, please.

marek

Attachment: pgpDnOZ4EY7eQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: