Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes: > 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. Right, this is convincing and I can see how that would work, and I was wrong to dismiss that approach. Where I think it is problematic is when Debian no longer ships a free installer (proposal A and E). How would you install any of the free Debian packages without a free installer, if you care about not running proprietary software? It seems similar to the walled garden of non-free app stores. >> 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). Thanks -- this helps me understand the two principles at play here: 1) having a free Debian 2) having a Debian that works on as much hardware as possible I see how you come to the conclusion that including non-free works is a good idea when you want to reach principle 2). It also makes it clear that there is a conflict and a trade-off to be made, faced with hardware that requires non-free works before it starts to work. Principle 2) is a respectable and useful principle, it helps to guide decisions and priorities. It is probably a much more common principle than 1) -- I assume Ubuntu, Windows, Android etc are guided by that principle to a large extent. For me, principle 1) is more important than 2). For you and Steve, if I may put words in your mouth, principle 2) is more important than 1). I don't think the principle in 2) is well supported by Debian documentation. You describe it as a critical goal of the project. I'm not going to convince you to give up principle 2), but maybe I can make a point that there appears to be a gap between that principle and the documentation describing what the Debian project is about. If we go to https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.en.html it says The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system. If we go to (linked from the front-page of debian.org): https://www.debian.org/intro/philosophy.en.html it says The Debian Project is an association of individuals, sharing a common goal: We want to create a free operating system, freely available for everyone. Now, when we use the word "free", we're not talking about money, instead, we are referring to software freedom. If we go to https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct.en.html it says Debian Contributors have many ways of reaching our common goal of a free operating system which may differ from your ways. Assume that other people are working towards this goal. I could go on. I tried to find text that supports the position that Debian will work on all hardware and do whatever users wants to do, but I don't see -- most likely because I'm already deeply biased by my preference towards principle 1) rather than 2). /Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature