Re: What it means to be Debian
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 08:03:08PM +0000, Sam Hartman wrote:
> no where in the social contract do we commit to using only free
> tools for our work.
> [...]
> I choose to do none of those things, but will vigorously defend others'
> right to do so.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. AFAICS, all participants to this
thread (including me) agree that people who use non-free software are neither
evil nor ill.
The difference was explained before: there are needs and beliefs, and they are
very different things.
If someone believes to have a need to use a non-free service, we respect that,
but view it as a problem and would like to see this solved by having a free
alternative available.
I write "believes to have a need" on purpose, because I think this is where the
confusion stems from: this is about a need, even if it may be disputable that
this need is "real"; the fact that they believe that there is a need is enough,
and we respect it.
The above has nothing to do with beliefs. Beliefs are about people who believe
that using non-free services is better for some ethical reason. They will say
that even if a free alternative would be available, the non-free service is
still better and so people shouldn't use the free service. I'm not talking
about missing features, because those are in the realm of "needs". A belief in
a non-free service means that they are of the opinion that free software is
ethically (as opposed to technically) inferior. I believe that such a view is
incompatible with the core values of our community.
And I note that even RMS, symbol of the strictest form of "free-only" thinking,
agrees with this principle. He wrote GNU on an OS which was non-free. AFAIK
he still believes this was the right thing to do. He believed he needed it in
order to replace it. But he certainly didn't believe that using the non-free
OS was fundamentally better than using an as yet nonexistent free OS. Quite
the opposite, that was the reason he was writing GNU.
So I agree with the illness statement (although I don't think "illness" is a
good word for it): if people (believe they) need non-free software, we should
try to make free alternatives better. If they believe that non-free software
is better fore the sole reason that it is non-free, we should try to convince
them that they are wrong.
None of this means we should tell people they can't use non-free software, but
it may mean suggesting free alternatives (as was done in the post that started
this discussion).
The problem with services such as Google docs and YouTube is that the site
owner allows the service provider to violate the privacy of the visitors. This
shouldn't be a decision that the site owner is allowed to make. Of course it
is technically complicated to do it differently, but fundamentally this choice
should be with the visitor, not with the site owner. For this reason, "if you
want to use this non-free service on your site, that's your problem" isn't
entirely true.
Thanks,
Bas
Reply to: