Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change
Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> writes:
> What I'm specifically objecting to is that if Steve's proposal were
> implemented I believe the result would violate our social contract that
> the Debian system is 100% free.
This part I understand, and indeed this is why I proposed a ballot option
to modify the Social Contract. Obviously you and I disagree over the
merits of the current Social Contract, to an extent that I would say that
I think you and I view the purpose of Debian as a project in radically
different ways. Which is fine; that's what we have votes for.
> Another problem is the ability to distribute the installer. Even when
> non-free work is not executed by hardware during installation (e.g., by
> user choice) does not mean all is well: You usually need to comply with
> non-free licensing terms to be able to distribute non-free works.
Yes, this is a concern that we will want to address. I think we can
address this with a vetting policy to avoid any license that would cause
problems with distribution, but there is certainly a chance that I am
underestimating the difficulties. But my impression is that the
non-freeness of firmware is mostly about preferred form for modification
and effective availability of source code, not about redistribution. The
hardware companies generally *want* their users to have easy and
convenient access to the firmware, although of course sometimes write very
bad licenses or have lawyers try to insert intellectual property warfare
clauses.
But that's all an aside. The main point I wanted to make here is that I
do understand this concern, and I think it's legitimate, even if we
disagree about how to address it.
> Another problem is that our social contract becomes meaningless if we
> intentionally violate it ourselves.
I think it is possible to argue in good faith that the Debian installer is
not part of the Debian system as defined in SC 1. I would not personally
make that argument, but I don't think it's an unreasonable argument to say
that the Debian system is the packages in our "main" apt repository, and
the installer is a separate thing from the system. This is how I would
interpret the current proposal A as potentially not being in conflict with
the SC.
Obviously, I think it would be better to just explicitly change the SC to
avoid needing to make this sort of interpretation, which is why I put
forward the proposal that I did. But I think "intentionally violate" goes
too far in characterizing other people's motives.
> I think I'm missing a better problem statement to motivate any changes
> here. The ones I've tried to understand, by watching Steve's
> presentation this year and reading earlier mailing list posts, does not
> convince me: it appears to boil down to a desire to help more people be
> able to install Debian and join the community. That desire is
> understandable, but does not motivate compromising the social contract
> to me.
This position makes a lot of sense to me. I happen to disagree with it,
but I think I understand why you hold it. I do think you're underplaying
Steve's arguments here, but I get why it's hard to summarize arguments
that you don't agree with.
The way I would put the argument is that one of the critical goals of
Debian is to be a universal operating system that prioritizes its users
alongside free software, and implicit in that prioritization is that
Debian is intended to be a practical, real-world, usable operating system
for regular computers, not (solely) a research experiment or ideological
statement. And I would say that one of the motives of Steve's proposal
(or, at the least, one of my motives for agreeing with it) is that I think
we, some time ago, reached the point where dynamically loadable firmware
is necessary in normal cases for our users.
In other words, I would say that an installer that doesn't support
non-free firmware is verging on becoming a hobbyist experiment: usable in
narrow situations with specially-constructed hardware but not really
usable outside of the world of hobbyists with an interest in that specific
construction of software freedom. To me, it therefore contradicts the
*principles* of the Debian Project to be primarily pointing our users
towards an installer that is prioritizing making an ineffectual
ideological statement over making it possible for them to practically use
the operating system.
To be clear, I'm not saying this to try to convince you; I understand that
you don't agree and I am not expecting you to change your mind. I'm
saying this because I'm encouraging you to have a better summary of the
opposing argument in your head. I'm a little worried that you are
constructing a bit of a straw man by downplaying the argument in favor of
supporting firmware by making it about accomodation and compromise rather
than a principled statement about the purpose of Debian (that you may
happen to disagree with).
> What surprises me is that there is any need of a change: the Debian
> project accepts non-free works and distribute non-free installers for
> anyone who wants them. So the practical problems facing people
> requiring non-free software appears solved or possible to solve.
It is certainly possible to make a good-faith argument that we can solve
this problem without SC changes.
> As you suggest in your final paragraph, maybe the issue is "merely"
> about the cost-tradeoff between having one installer and having two
> installer. One solution is to only have a free installer then, since
> there appears to be a lot of work involved to cater for all various kind
> of non-free content out there.
I want to be quite clear here: I think that if Debian chose to take this
route, to me that would be a project declaration that Debian is no longer
interested in being a real operating system intended for day-to-day use on
regular computers, and instead is intended to be an ideological statement
above all else. Since I'm not interested in volunteering labor for an
ideological statement with little practical use in the real world, if that
were to happen I would stop contributing to Debian and start working on
some other free operating system whose goals are more aligned with mine.
This is what I meant when I said that one of the reasons why I contribute
to Debian is that it's not gNewSense.
The reason why I'm saying this so bluntly is that I am concerned that your
wording is approaching the implication that the folks with concerns about
this proposal are principled and the folks supporting this proposal are,
well, less principled in some way, or are compromising their principles.
I don't believe I am compromising my principles; I believe I am upholding
*different* principles than you are, about building something that does
things concretely in the world and values that utility at least equally
with making ideological statements. My disagreement with you *is* a
disagreement of principles, not a matter of you being more willing to
stick with principles than I am.
Also, to be clear, dropping the non-free installer is not on the ballot;
none of the options, including yours as you point out, say that. So I am
not worried that Debian is moving in this direction, and this is an
abstract discussion rather than something I think is likely. But after
reading your message a couple of times, it felt important to me to stress
that I don't feel like those who would prioritize DFSG freeness have a
monopoly on principles here.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: