Re: What it means to be Debian
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:47:09PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:59:57PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > 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.
> Do such people exist or that's a straw man?
I'm not sure if they do. I know Microsoft tries to convince people of this
(but I don't think they believe it themselves), and I suppose they succeed
sometimes.
> > 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.
> Yes, we should, instead of preaching and scolding.
I disagree that preaching is always bad. I would like a healthy balance of
trying to convince people of our position (that's preaching) and working on the
technical side of it.
> > 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).
> I'll quote the relevant part of the post that started this discussion:
Oh, I missed that. I saw a different mail with a friendly suggestion that
another platform would probably be more successful, including a suggestion. I
thought that started this, but I was wrong about that.
I agree that the part you quoted is not helpful.
> No free alternative was suggested here. Not to mention "insecure and
> untrusted" which can probably be classified as FUD
That depends who you want to trust. If you don't like the NSA, you definitely
shouldn't send your data to Google. Whether or not those with access are
trusted is a personal issue.
> > 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.
> This, of course, has nothing to do with four freedoms or with your
> favorite definition of "free".
It is. Privacy violations do not pass the
https://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest . Services that violate privacy are by
definition not free. (Even though the DFSG doesn't seem to have anything that
says so, but that's why they're guidelines, I suppose; it's all about the
spirit, not the letter.)
Thanks,
Bas
Reply to: