Re: GR: Removal of non-free
Michael Banck wrote:
Bah, was trying to hold off on this as long as possible.
Why ? It's a basic issue, after all ...
Note, I'll edit out some remarks where nothing has been added, marked by
"[...]".
[...]
You seem to technically qualify for the 'point your
/etc/apt/sources.list somewhere else' bit. Why do you worry about this
at all?
Because I somehow doubt that the current technical and social
infrastructures behind Debian "non-free" can be currently duplicated
"somewhere else".
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.
'Cause I can afford that BECAUSE there exists a "non-free" section with the
relevant infrastructure and support, containing the (non-DFSG-free) tools
I need currently for my current work. Cutting this support wopuld be a
serious issue for me (and, I suspect, a large user community).
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.
This may be true from a lawyer's point of view. And that's fine with me.
For practical purposes, the close association of Debian an the "non-free"
non-Debian part is "good enough".
[...]
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.
I fail to see how my pleading against the removal of a "non-free" section
(which I feel childish) goes against the goal of creating a Free Operating
System (TM). Contrarywise, I see the "non-free" section existence as a kind
of umpilical cord : wait long enough, it will fall off spontaneously, cut
it too soon, you endanger the child. To make the point : the haste IS childish.
And, oh, BTW, the goal of creating a Free Operating System was a major part
in my choice of system. The practicality of the "non-free" section was also
important.
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.
I didn't ask for a voice (although some structure representing in Debian
circles the opinions of end-users might be a *very* good thing !), I just
wanted to be heard.
I probably won't fake myself a Debian Developper : I'm 47, have a heavy
real-world workload and a family, and my coding days are behind me. What I
write is mostly small statistical software, shared with the statistical
community through the relevant channels (the R depository), when time comes.
As for the power of the vote : I am pretty aware of the voting procedures
in Debian. But I know enough history to be aware of a lot of contries that
voted themselves a dictatorship, while keeping the voting process : to stay
in the first art of the XXth century, think Italy, Germany and so on ...
Even the Bolshevik party statutes had "votes" all over it. The sovietic
constitutions acknowledged the vote as the only source of legitimacy, and
votes were regularly held. I then have some reasons to think that, while
voting is a necessary part of a democracy, it is not sufficient, by a long
way. And I won't delve into contemporary examples : there are flames I
won't fan ...
Someone else in the list (sorry, I can't recall who and when) seems to
share my concerns, and pointed out that further revisions of the Debian
fundamental texts might restrict more and more the set of admissible
software in Debian. That is partly the point that frightens me ...
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.
a) How do you (did you ?) measure this "low percentage" ?
b) The proposition is not about *evaluating* such a move. It is about
*doing* the move, and postulates that the evaluation has been done and
showed that the "non-free" section has no longer practical uses or "enough"
(definition ?) users to bother.
In other words, proponents *postulate* (without any form of proof I am
aware of) that the reasons having led to the creation of the "non-free"
section no longer exist, and propose to move on this basis.
Furthermore, they are bold enough to think that the "unfortunate" (your
words, not mine) users of the non-free section should be "pointed somewhere
else" (your words, again). That reeks parochialism, even sectarism, to my
(admitedly sensitive) nose...
[...]
Nobody forces you not to use your non-free software. Just get it
from somewhere else from now on, will you?
Again, I appreciated the support (infrastructure, bug tracking system, etc
...) offered by the non-free section. I would sorely miss it, if only for
a couple of packages. And I think I'm not alone.
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.
Okay : now your point is clear : you accept the idea of losing a fraction
(unspecified) of non-free users if some other (unspecified) fraction of
them move to Free Software (TM). Dropping rethorics, I prefer not to
qualify such an attitude. It stands for itself.
And, yes, it still frightens me.
Emmanuel Charpentier
--
Emmanuel Charpentier
Reply to: