Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes: > Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> writes: > >> 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 > > This summary is moving in the right direction! But your phrasing of 2) > isn't the principle that I personally hold; it's a consequence of that > principle. I would rather go one level deeper and phrase it something > more like this: > > 2) having a Debian that is useful for and supports the needs of its users Thanks for calibrating it, that guiding principle makes sense as well. > When I first got deeply interested in free software in the late 1990s, I > looked around and saw two basic mindsets towards free software. I'd > classify those as the FSF approach and the Debian approach. The FSF > decided to go down the route of ideological purism: they made the absolute > minimum number of compromises possible and then shed them as soon as > possible. Debian instead took the route of practicality and tried to make > the operating system usable and flexible, recognizing that sometimes for > some people that would include non-free software. That upset the FSF > quite a bit; they considered (and I believe consider) Debian to not > "really" be a free software project because of this stance. Isn't the Debian approach you describe actually the open source (or later, open core) approach? What may be a problem is that the open source/core model came about inspired by the Debian model, but the open source terminology wasn't established at the time. So the wording of the Debian policies refer to free software and the FSF philosophical ideas, but the intention was not really the same and the gap between the words and intended meaning continue to haunt us here. > My opinion then, and my opinion now, is that Debian has the better of that > argument. Debian's approach is simply more effective *at promoting free > software*. As a result (not only of that stance, but largely I think > because of that stance) the FSF's attempts at producing operating systems > have been hobbyist experiments and ideological statements that almost no > one uses. Meanwhile, Debian has become the foundation of numerous major > free Linux distributions. To me, the FSF's attempts to produce an operating system lead to the range of GNU/Linux distributions that came about during that time, which we all still use. >> 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). > > Ah, no, I have explained this poorly. This is not at all true for me, and > I suspect also not true for Steve. > > For me, principle 1) is *equally important* than principle 2), and my > disagreement with you is that I feel like you're discarding principle 2) > rather than giving it equal weight. Okay. But given a situation when someone comes to you with a hardware component that requires non-free software to work, and asks you to install Debian on it, would you resolve that by 1) install the free Debian system on it and provide them with the documentation and binaries how to install the non-free software required after they made their own informed decision or 2) install the Debian system including the non-free work on it and provide them with documentation explaining what happened ? I take it yours and Steve's proposals is 2) while mine is 1). And, yes, approach 1) may result in the possibility that you have to say "sorry, I can't install Debian on your hardware, and here is why". We say the same when someone comes with an old 8086 processor or a quantum computer prototype too, too broaden the view a bit. In many situations there is no conflict between principle 1) and 2) but in the above case there is a direct conflict and you have to prioritize between them. >> I don't think the principle in 2) is well supported by Debian >> documentation. > > I believe that you're missing point 4 of the Social Contract. > > We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software > community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We > will support the needs of our users for operation in many different > kinds of computing environments. The entire SC4 reads: Our priorities are our users and free software We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non-free works that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to charge a fee to people who create or use such works. We will allow others to create distributions containing both the Debian system and other works, without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals, we will provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with no legal restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system. My reading is that the text assumes that the Debian system is 100% free (DSC1) but it says that we agree that our users may want to use non-free works on it. If the Debian system was not 100% free, not much of that text makes a lot of sense to me. I believe the last sentence reinforces my interpretation: an installer with non-free works on it would not fulfil the last criteria "with no legal restrictions". We read this paragraph differently. I'm trying to share my reading and realize my interpretation may not be the intended one, and I accept that your interpretation is nearer the intended reading because you are more familiar with the Debian project than I am. I'm trying to understand, but I'm struggling. > The purpose of the Debian Project is absolutely to create a free software > distribution. We are not Apple; the point is to build on top of free > software. If I really considered 2) much more important than 1), I'd be > in favor of rolling non-free into main, including non-free drivers, and so > forth. I am not. > > But Debian, very early on, decided to navigate the tension between those > two equally-held principles by taking the route of making it usable > *first* and then as free as possible. The guiding principle where we have > options about how to do something where both can work for the user is free > software; that's the point of this endeavor. But we don't tell users that > their hardware is useless and they need to buy new hardware in order to > maintain free software purity. We meet them where they are, and then help > them make their system as free as possible. My view is that the Debian resolved the tension by providing a 100% free Debian and include in -- and invite to -- the community help and resources to solve the situation with non-free works as much as Debian is able to do within the restriction of a 100% free Debian, to meet people where they are and to make their system as free as possible. /Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature