[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change



Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> writes:

> Right. I think that it's important to realize that the FSF and Debian
> use different tactics to promote Free Software. The FSF focuses on
> promoting a clean ideology to the point of ignoring practical problems.
> The risk is becoming irrelevant, because very few people are able to live
> with the compromises that are required by ignoring the practical issues.
>
> It's like the lighthouse joke: "the FSF is like a lighthouse. As a boat,
> it's extremely useful to know where it stands, but you probably don't
> want to be at the exact same position as the lighthouse."
>
> Debian, on the other hand, promotes a similar ideology, but allows
> compromises, while being explicit about them. This is extremely powerful
> because we demonstrate that we are able to produce something that is of
> high quality and useful to our numerous users, and at the same time we
> are in a great position to inform our users about the compromises that
> were required to do so, and weight in to improve the long term
> situation.

I don't think that is a unbalanced comparison of the positions.  Debian
and FSF makes _different_ compromises, and have _different_ red lines
for what they consider unacceptable.

To illustrate, Debian does not consider a work under the GFDL with an
invariant section to be free, and (as far as I understand) would not
permit them in main or in the Debian installer.  Disallowing
modifications is quite similar to the terms for some non-free firmware.

It is easy to criticize the FSF but may be harder to realize that most
of the arguments can be applied to Debian as well.

Both approaches are reasonable and valid positions to take.  I like that
Debian takes a stand against invariant sections.  I like that the FSF
takes a stand against the non-free section in Debian.  I think both are
problematic, but I also accept that there are situations where they are
an acceptable compromise given different guiding principles.  The
positions share a lot of mutual ground but there are conflicting areas.

/Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: