Re: GR: Removal of non-free
Bah, was trying to hold off on this as long as possible.
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 05:26:17PM +0100, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
> I just read (a large part of) the "Removal of non-free" thread, and I, as a
> basic, garden-variety, Debian user, am *frightened*.
>
> A small bit of background : I have used computers, on and off, since 1974
> (yes, I'm that old). A former oral surgeon, I have done some work in
> medical informatics and am presently a biostatistician. While I did a bit
> of development a long time ago, I am mostly a basic computer *user* ; what
> I write is for the most part a bit of statistical computation routines.
>
> I have followed Linux since '92 (I probably still have two 3.5" floppies
> wit Linux 0.07 sitting somewhere in the basement), and used Debian since
> 1.3 days, switching from heavily modified SLS and Slackware distributions.
You seem to technically qualify for the 'point your
/etc/apt/sources.list somewhere else' bit. Why do you worry about this
at all?
> However, I happen to use some non-free software, and evene some
> non-Debian commercial software, for practical reasons : I work in a
> large organization that has standardized on Windows applications, and
> I HAVE TO INTERACT WITH THE REST OF THE ORGANIZATION : I am not paid
> by this organization to live in a morally irreproachable ivory tower.
> When free (= DFSG-compliant) software allows me to interact, that's
> obviously what I do (as a side benefit, the free application is
> usually better, but that's not the point). When I receive data in a
> proprietary format (Access databases come to mind ..), I CANNOT demand
> the sender to switch : I have to cope with it, if only to convert it
> to a better format.
That's a pity, but I fail to see how this is connected to this
proposed ballot.
> 1) The original proponent seem to think that cutting support for
> non-free software will somehow create an incitation for other,
> unspecified, people to write free substitutes. While this may be at
> least partially true, it may well have the undesirable side effect of
> turning potential users AWAY from free software and free software
> distributions. No one in his right mind would use a system that
> forbids him to do part of what he has to do. As a user, I do not wish
> Debian to become a useless standard of reference.
Note that 'non-free' is not, and has never been, part of Debian.
> 2) The rhetorics used in this debate (by both sides, BTW) frighten me
> : I have seen them used again and again in a lot of (European-style)
> political organizations. Especially, the hair splitting on wording of
> the DSC reminds me of the worse parliamentary tactics used in both
> American and European chambers : using a seemingly formal amendment to
> get (respectively to oppose) a deep practical change (something called
> "a rider" in American parlance, IIRC) is one of the most efficient
> weapons of a technocracy. As a user, I do not wish Debian to become a
> technocracy, not even an aristocracy.
That's a point I partly share with you. While I believe editorial
discussions are important for things like changing the social contract,
I believe we're splitting too much hairs in other fields.
> 3) The original proposition seems to me a major act of childishness :
> it sums up to demanding (potential and actual) users of Debian to use
> *only* whant the author feels to be "free software" in *his*
> understanding or to use other software with no Debian infrastructure
> support at all. This, IMNSHO, is pure, unadulterated, high-school
> grade,behaviour : the (potential) user either has to 100% agree with
> the proponent or be left out. That behaviour could be tolerated in
> kindergarten, not in polite adults' society. As a user, I do not wish
> Debian to become a debating society, nor a cult or a sect.
We're trying to make a Free Operating System. If you think that's
childish, you might want to reevaluate your choice of distribution.
> 4) Furthermore, such behaviour may become extremely dangerous : for
> example (purposely chosen extreme, I have a point to make), it has
> been used by Stalin to evict from the Bolshevik party any people not
> totally agreeing with him, thus making said party his tool. As a user,
> I do not want Debian to become a dictatorship, even a benign one.
Now, here's the slippery slope. In case you're not familar, you've just
posted to a mailing list called 'debian-vote'. 'vote'. 'dictatorship'.
Are you sure you've thought this bit through? The Debian Developer body
is free to vote (in a democratic way) on whatever it pleases. If you
want to influence the outcome of the vote, you'll have to become a
Debian Developer yourself.
> 5) Such behaviour has also locked a lot of political organizations
> (left- and right-wing, BTW) out of any real influence on the course of
> events : staying on high moral ground and off the real-world
> responsibilities has a lot of appeal for some leaders ... Debian might
> well fall in this particular trap. As a user, I do not wish Debian to
> become a wailing society.
As I said above, Debian is bound to make the best Free Operating System
possible. The emphasis is on 'Free'. Debian has always been among the
avant-garde of the Free Software Movement. On the other hand, by the
time the project started, large parts of everybodie's daily work was not
possible without non-free software, something the project acknowledged
in the Social Contract any by having a 'non-free' section.
All we (or at least some of us) are trying to do now is to reevaluate
whether non-free software is still so essential for everybody that
having it on our own servers is a good measure. Or whether perhaps the
low percentage of people who unfortunately still have to rely on
non-free can be pointed somewhere else.
> 5) On the other hand, I agree that a distinction must be made between
> free and non-free software. Being too lax in this respect would
> oversee the whole point of Debian. As a user, I do not wish Debian to
> become Yet Another Distribution.
The destinction has been made since day one. Debian is 100% Free
Software.
> But I would sternly oppose any proposal tending to (politically)
> *enforce* such a substitution. That would require to believe that
> "there is no freedom for freedom's foes" (as stated
> Fouquier-Tinville), and that would be the end of what Debian aims to
> be. In other words, please don't force us to be free !
Nobody forces you not to use your non-free software. Just get it
from somewhere else from now on, will you?
As a matter of fact, I know a couple of very talented people who refuse
to become Debian Developers because of clause #5 in the Social Contract
and the distribution of non-free on our ftp-servers. So it's not just
about losing people (I wouldn't shear a tear about losing you as a user,
after your Stalin remark above, regardless of how many 'PS' you wrote),
it's also about possibly gaining people dropping non-free.
Michael
Reply to: