Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal

[Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net>]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net> writes:

>     Not at all true!  [RMS] was, IIRC, perfectly happy with the suggestion
>     that non-free repositories be listed in source.list as long as they
>     were commented out *by default* -- or even commented out only if
>     someone responded "yes" to a question like, "would you like to see
>     only truly free software".

> I think that a question "Would you like to see non-free packages?"
> would be an ineffective solution, since only truly committed idealists
> like me would answer no.

Well, I stand corrected.

I phrased that question very deliberately, in a positive manner,
and without actually mentioning non-free software.  (Although there
are phrasings that might work even better, such as, "do you really
want to be bothered with lists of software that have ugly, complex
legal entanglements and annoying restrictions?")

I know that you hear a disproportionate amount of reactionary backlash
against free software, just because you are who you are.  I saw you
being harrased by mental midgets at LWE in San Jose (and I made a
point of coming over and thanking you for all you've done, to try to
defuse the situation a little).  Not everyone is like that -- not even
most people.  Not even very many.  I can understand if it's hard for
you to keep this in mind, though, some days.

Believe me, the idea of truly free software appeals to a *lot* of
people!  The whole concept makes people's eyes light up.  I talk to
people -- users, not computer experts -- at Science Fiction
conventions about what free software really means, and the reaction
from random SF fans is *overwhelmingly* positive and enthusiastic.

I really think that the average person would respond "yes" to my
question.  (At least, the average person who would install Debian in
the first place.)

> It would be like asking children, "Should we offer you some candy
> before your meal?"

This, I'm afraid, I don't agree with.  What is so appealing about
non-free software?  If someone is really that attracted to non-free
software, they'll probably use Windows or a Mac or something, and not
a GNU system.  It's not candy at all -- it tastes nasty, and most
people wish they could spit it out!  They hate it, many are stuck with
it, and if they're coming to Debian, they're probably desperate to
escape it.

The problem is that we, Debian, *have* to ask that question, somehow,
somewhere.  We're attempting to make the absolutely best free system
around; one that's so good that you can even use it to run non-free
software if you need to.  (Not unlike the FSF, which makes software so
good that people will want to run it even on non-free systems.)

Debian is somewhat the flip side of the FSF.  The FSF provides great
free software that can run on non-free OSes.  We provide a great free
OS that can run non-free software.  We *have* to advertise that fact
in order to draw people in and get them to see the advantages of free
OSes.  So we *can't* hide the fact that we support non-free software,
because that would undermine our goal of promoting free OSes.

> I would like to have a way that the GNU Project can recommend the
> Official Debian system, without recommending the non-free packages.

*I'd* like to have the FSF stop supporting non-free OSes, so that we
can point to the GNU tools and say, "look, this is the best sofware of
its class, but you need a free system like Debian to use it."  I know
that's not going to happen, however.  Not yet.  But it cuts both ways.

The FSF and Debian are separate projects with different short-term
goals, but basically the same long term goal.  Neither project can be
truly effective if it subordinates its short-term needs to the needs
of the other project.  It's unfortunate, but true.

Neither project has advanced far enough towards their common goal to
be able to ignore the needs of the non-free-software users whom we
both need to attract.  We're approaching the goal of promoting freedom
from opposite sides, and, someday, we'll meet in the middle, and shake
hands, and smile at a job well done, but that day hasn't come yet.  We
both need to continue our existing compromises for very good reasons.

And, I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  As long as the FSF
actively supports Solaris, HP/UX, MS-Windows, and other proprietary
OSes, they cannot claim the moral high ground over Debian.

And what this all has to do with the proposal currently under
discussion, I'm not sure, but at least it may provide food for
thought.

cheers
-- 
Chris Waters   xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
      or    xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr     | this .signature file.