On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 07:55:29PM +0100, Jordi Mallach wrote: > Hello everyone, > > The following questions are for the three Candidates: > > - In our Leader Elections of 2001, one of the "hot topics" in the Debian > world was the proposal to remove the non-free archive. As most of you > know, that proposal never got resolved, and it finally ended dying > when everyone got bored of the gigantic flamewar. > Again, what is your stand about non-free & Debian? I do not personally believe that software licensed in ways incompatible with the DFSG is an essential part of Debian's work. As our Social Contract notes, it's not even an official part of our distribution. By and large, I think it is uncontroversial to assert that Free Software continues to be able to do more and more, and non-free software fills fewer essential roles in Debian users lives than it did when the Project was founded; also, more and more Debian users find themselves not needing non-free software are at all in their everyday lives. There was a time when people who said we'd have free desktop environments, free office suites, and free (graphical) web browsers were laughed at. Those people aren't laughed at anymore. Instead, many of the people who ignored the laughter, rolled up their sleeves, and got to work are finding themselves able to feed their families through their work on Free Software. The significance of this development should not, in my opinion, be underestimated. > Would you push to get a final answer on that debate? I think it is important that the General Resolution that John Goerzen proposed almost 2 years ago come to a vote. As DPL, I will work with the Project Secretary to see to it that the Developers are ultimately able to express their will via our Standard Resolution Procedure on this issue. However, I'd be careful with language like "final answer". I believe the Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines should be given the freedom to evolve along with our Project. Not necessarily changed at the slightest whim, as some of our developers fear, but I do not think they should be regarded as historical documents incapable of revision. Let me provide two examples. It's possible that the time will come when the contents of our non-free archive are so marginal and so little-used, or otherwise problematic to retain, that we decide to stop hosting it on Project machines. (That time may be now; without a vote, it's difficult to say.) It's also possible that a backlash against Free Software will manifest itself through government regulation, sponsored by corporations that are threatened by this model of individual empowerment, development, and cooperation. For instance, just last week, the U.S. Senate held hearings on a proposed bill that would mandate the existence of copy-prevention technology in all consumer-grade computer and software: <http://www.politechbot.com/p-03206.html>. I am hopeful that this legislation will be defeated, but it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that certain avenues of Free Software development will be driven underground before the dinosaurs of obsolete market models become extinct. It's a grim -- but hopefully remote -- possibility that the DFSG we cherish will be rendered inapplicable to whole swaths of software development by national laws in countries where a large amount of Debian development takes place. Under such sad circumstances, I would probably rather see the DFSG or Social Contract amended than effectively forbid an entire country's worth of Debian developers from participating in our Project. However, I am optimistic that such a tragedy will not come to pass. The bottom line is that I feel that the Social Contract and DFSG are documents of critical importance to our project, but they are also instruments of circumstances of their authorship. For me, Debian is, first and foremost, the people who comprise it. When the composition of our project and times change enough to place the Social Contract and DFSG in conflict with the desires of our own membership, those documents must change. Our first loyalty has to be to each other; otherwise, there will be no Project around to serve our twin priorities of our users and Free Software. This is why I do not think we should attempt "final" interpretations -- or revisions -- of the Social Contract and DFSG, or to settle the question of non-free for all time. For when we are all retired and our children are Debian Developers, they deserve the right to express their will on the subject, just as we (will) have. > What would you do to solve the ambiguities that were found in our > Constitution during that debate? As I understand it, the Project Secretary will be applying the revised Condorcet method to this election, and he will use that to make a formal recommendation for or against its adoption as a Constitutional amendment. I'm inclined to defer to his judgment on this matter, though I will make another attempt to wrap my head around all the nuances and corner cases before casting my own vote. :) > At the time of those votings, I felt our vote system was broken, as 3 > seconded proposals never got anywhere. I'd like to see this problem > solved. Me too! I think the current Project Secretary has a good plan under development, and I have no desire to disrupt it before it's been given a chance. -- G. Branden Robinson | One man's theology is another man's Debian GNU/Linux | belly laugh. branden@debian.org | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpIn1xkbqSFd.pgp
Description: PGP signature