On 13/09/22 at 14:49 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > 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. I'm not criticizing the FSF. I think it is extremely useful (like a lighthouse). I truly appreciate their approach. I like the intellectual challenge of confronting my own willingness to compromise with the pure ideology they express. However, I'm pointing out that Debian generally follows a different tactic. And I don't think that it would be a good idea for Debian to switch tactics. Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature