Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change
Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
>> 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?
Well, it depends, because "open source" is more of a marketing label than
a movement and therefore doesn't necessarily have agreed-upon principles
outside of the definition of what an "open source" license is. As I
understand it, that was the point from the start.
That means there are people who work under the open source aegis with
opinions ranging anywhere from full FSF-aligned beliefs to "open source is
simply a technically better way of creating high-quality software, and I
don't care about user freedoms at all."
Debian qualifies as "open source" under most uses of the marketing label,
but ideologically I think we're a free software project, and I think folks
on the less-freedom-oriented side of open source would not find Debian in
full alignment with them. Certainly, I personally identify with the free
software *ideology*, not just with the open source argument for effective
software development. I think that giving people the ability to control
the software in their life is a social good towards which we should
strive, for numerous reasons.
One of the things I like about Debian is that we are avoiding the open
core approach. We don't work on non-free software to make money to
support free software work. It's worth being aware that a committment to
using volunteer labor means you're necessarily excluding a lot of people,
which has other consequences. But I think it's fine for there to be
organizations like Debian that take that path anyway. I'm in a position
where I can offer volunteer labor, and I would rather do that to an
organization that takes an ideological stand.
> 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.
Right, I think both things are true.
I think the FSF achieved amazing things in the early days of the
organization, to which we all owe them a debt of gratitude. And then, as
is the tendency of many successful organizations, they were unable to
distinguish between the tactics that were critical to their success from
the tactics that they succeeded *in spite of*, and instead took this
success as confirmation that every single jot and tittle of their ideology
was correct. As a result, they became ideologically hide-bound and
inflexible, unable to learn from experience and unable to push their
long-standing effort to create a free software operating system over the
finish line.
The FSF bogged down in infighting over ideological purity, massively
mismanaged several of their centerpiece projects to the point of nearly
destroying them, and started becoming irrelevant, a trend that has sadly
continued to this day. Meanwhile, other organizations, including Debian,
learned from the tactics and ideology of the FSF that were successful and
adopted them, learned from the FSF tactics that failed and discarded them,
and picked up where the FSF left off and were able to succeed in that
project.
> 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).
Correct.
> 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.
Right, but in that case you would say "no one has written the code to make
this work." In the case of 1 above, honestly the way I would read that is
that you are saying "the software to make this computer work exists, but
it is a politically incorrect thoughtcrime and therefore I am not allowed
to touch it because it would violate my purity," something that I would
find INTENSELY off-putting. This is in part for personal reasons due to
past experiences with religious cult behavior, which leaves me with a
deep-seated flinch reaction to things that feel like purity culture.
> 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.
I think your interpretation is valid. It's just not mine.
Also, I should make clear: I'm not trying to argue that Debian's
foundation documents in the abstract imply that I am right and you are
wrong. I think Debian's foundation documents support both
interpretations, and I am also not a strict constructionalist. Debian is
a living project made up of humans with a voting system to decide these
sorts of disagreements. At some level, I don't put that much weight on
what the Social Contract is "supposed" to mean in some abstract sense,
because I don't think it has a Platonic objective meaning. It's a social
statement by a group of people, the membership of that group changes over
time, and we're allowed to change our minds.
Rather, I'm arguing the principles that I personally hold. I think those
principles are largely in alignment with Debian's principles, which is
what drew me to Debian in the first place. But while I'm happy to point
to where I see support for my principles in Debian's documents, I'm not
trying to argue that your position doesn't also have support. If I
thought the SC perfectly represented my position, I wouldn't be proposing
a GR option that modifies it. :)
> 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.
Yup, I think all those things are true. I think we can do even better at
achieving our principles with an installer that includes non-free
firmware, and I don't think it causes any meaningful damage to our free
software principle. But I also truly do understand why other people
disagree, and I think that position is also entirely reasonable.
In every activist group, you will find a split between the purists and the
pragmatists: the people who consider the abstract definitional principles
of the group to be the most important and want all actions of the group to
be fully consistent with them, and the people who think that effecting
change in the world is *also* a core principle of the group that needs to
be given equal weight. I'm a pragmatist, and I think you're a purist.
That's not only fine; it's healthy, since every activist movement needs
both. Purists are prone to ivory-tower loss of contact with the real
world; pragmatists are prone to believing the ends justify the means and
losing track of the point of the movement.
I think the FSF is what happens when the purists drive out all the
pragmatists and open core is what happens when the pragmatists drive out
all the purists, and I'm not fond of either of those extremes. But by
nature I'm a pragmatist, so I'm always going to be a thorn in the side of
the purists. :)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: