We *can* be Free-only
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:56:23PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> We have proven to the world that a free operating system can compete
> with the best proprietary operating systems.
>
> Now let us prove to the world that this operating system can stand up on
> its own, without the crutch of non-free.
And this is an important point.
I believe that Debian can be the world's first large-scale Free-only
operating system project. Not only that, but I believe that by doing
this, Debian will improve itself and others.
I also believe that this is the best possible outcome for Free Software
and our users, the causes to which we have pledged ourselves.
Let us look at each of those in more detail.
It should be apparent that the cause of Free Software is not advanced by
promoting and supporting non-free. We have already seen the motivating
effects that we can achieve simply by putting a piece of software in the
non-free part of our archive. Imagine, then, how much greator those
effects would be by completely banning that software from our project
until it gets a Free license!
We will no longer provide free worldwide distribution for software we
consider licensed unethically. We will no longer be a crutch for those
that seek to prosper from our lack of ethical courage.
More importantly, we will finally show that it is possible to build a
world-class operating system from only Free components. There will no
longer be any hedging. That which is in Debian, supported by Debian,
distributed by Debian, and written by Debian will all be finally Free!
Let us now also consider the plight of our users, whom we also list as a
priority.
Non-free software, at its most basic level, is all about controlling and
restricting users. It restricts what people can do with a program. It
restricts what things about the program can be changed. It restricts
whom people can give copies of the program to. It often even restricts
what line of work people may be involved with while using the program.
These restrictions are not good for users. They prevent users from
being able to fix bugs in software, or paying someone to do it for them.
They prevent users from being able to use software for business. They
prevent users from being able to give software to other interested
users. They prevent users from collaborating with each other to improve
programs. And they prevent users from being able to use the programs as
a starting point for their own endeavors.
The result is countless hours of wasted time reinventing the wheel.
Countless dollars spent solving problems that are already fixed. And
unmeasurable frustration and lost productivity due to the inability to
fix problems that would be simple, but are insoluble due to lack of
source. These costs are borne not just by the developers of software,
but also by the users, who get either inferior software or overpriced
software.
I submit that the best possible long-term outcome for our users is one
in which non-free software ceases to play any part in their lives.
I farther submit that the best way to get there is to stop doing
anything with non-free software in Debian. We have a critical mass of
both software and users that, if we choose to use it wisely, can be a
tremendous force for good.
That is something that we must do.
----------------------------------------------
Now, for the disclaimer section.
I know that there will be some short-term pain from these actions. I
believe that this will result in long-term gain and is worth the
sacrifice. What's more, if there really are as many people that find
non-free vital, they will no doubt posess the skill, will, and resources
to ensure that a quality non-free repository will exist for a long time.
I very much suspect they will do a better job maintaining it than we
have to date. As a result, our users' pain will be only the slight one
of an edit to sources.list and a dselect update.
Even if the pain were larger, it is terrible to forsake a great good for
a little temporary convenience. We are Free! We do not need to let the
marketdroids control our destiny! Let us take a hold of it, and pull
everyone to a better place, rather than languishing in our hole because
climbing is hard.
I am quite well aware of the implications of non-free removal. At the
time I first proposed it, I maintained a package that would itself be
removed. I am not confused or delusional about this point.
I have also noted that the supporters of non-free in Debian come up with
a different "vital" program that Debian cannot do without each time
non-free elimination is proposed. At first, it was Netscape. Now we
see Japanese PDF readers and documentation.
The first thing to tell you is: Debian the distribution does not include
these programs now. We are not yanking software out of the cold dead
hands of non-free-addicted users. In fact, this proposal need not have
any effect on their systems at all. If Debian is unusable without a
piece of non-free software, than I say that Debian is unusable, period.
That non-free software is not part of Debian.
What's more, it shows that there will always be some piece of non-free
software that someone finds vital. We will never find a point where
this is not the case. We have to bite the bullet sometime, and now is a
great time to do that.
I have also said that I believe all operating systems suck. I still do.
Debian sucks also, though I like to say it sucks less. I want Debian to
be the first operating system that I can truly say "does not suck."
Finally, our social contract says we will provide ways and support for
users that wish to run non-free software on Debian. That does not
change with this proposal, and I for one, support keeping libc5 in
Debian.
-- John Goerzen
Reply to: