Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 06:43:58PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Robert Millan (rmh@aybabtu.com) [081109 18:26]:
> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 05:57:04PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > >
> > > | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade them
> > > | against each other.
> >
> > I believe this phrase invalidates SC #1.
>
> I'm not argueing about believes here, but what our Foundation Document
> says.
Indeed, it says that our priorities are our users and free software. It
doesn't say "we don't trade them against each other" because this is taken
from granted.
However, when _you_ say "we don't trade them against each other", I don't
think this is gratuitous. I think you're trying to imply that somehow SC #1
and SC #4 are not consistent. That is, that "our priorities are our users"
is incompatible with our system being "100% free".
This suggests that the only conceivable way in which we can serve our users
is by adding binary blobs to "main", which is _not true_. In fact, the rest
of SC #4 (which you didn't quote), and SC #5 make it very clear which ways
are we going to follow to serve users who depend on non-free software.
> Unless you think we help our users by either not releasing Lenny for
> another year (or more), [...] you seem to want to violate
> social contract #4.
As explained before, this is a purely technical decision and has nothing
to do with the discussion at hand.
I could as well assert that:
- When you choose to delay the release to fix a (technical) RC bug, you're
violating SC #4.
- When you choose to release with a known (technical) RC bug, you're
violating SC #4.
You're defining "violate SC #4" in such a way that it is not possible not
to violate it, and then using that as a justification that SC #1 must be
only half-true for the whole text to make sense.
> or that we help our users by moving the Linux
> kernel plus the installer out of main,
How is shipping packages in non-free instead of main supposed to be against
the interests of our users? I can only see that we would be telling them the
truth.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
Reply to: