Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> writes: > 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. Right, I agree, although my perception is that Debian is another lighthouse here, and that this is fine. Debians' DFSG and the rejection of GFDL Invariant sections are ridiculed elsewhere much the same way the FSF's positions on non-free firmware is ridiculed here. I happen to like these lighthouse properties of both Debian and the FSF, as it helps me navigate the free software sea. I don't think FSF or Debian would have been as successful as they have been without these lighthouse properties. I agree it doesn't make sense for either organization to change approach. I do believe that what we are seeing in this vote, however, is that Debian _is_ changing tactics: rather than providing a 100% free Debian (guided by the DSC/DFSG) and using that as a tactic to change the world, Debian will (under A/E) provide a 99% free Debian. /Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature