Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 06:43:58PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Robert Millan (firstname.lastname@example.org) [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
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
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
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."