On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 08:54:40PM +0000, Jurij Smakov wrote: > > This is precisely my problem, it comes across as a statement from > > Debian, when in fact it is the voice of a few people (who seem to > > have little idea about HR and running a business). This is why > > I replied on -jobs, because Debian does *not* have any policy > > preventing or allowing job offers with age restrictions.
> You are correct, we don't have such a policy in place. However, one of > our foundation documents (which I'm reasonably proud of) claims that > we will not accept any software with license which discriminates > "against any person or group of persons" into the distribution. Yes, > it's a stretch, because we can be fairly sure that people (as opposed > to firmware :-) are not software, and they don't have a license. I, > however, have a difficulty understanding the mindset of people who > can, at the same time, stand behind these principles, and be > comfortable with what looks to me as a clear-cut example of unfair > age discrimination (thanks to Ben for suggesting the correct wording). I don't condone age discrimination in hiring practices, but I also object to all instances of the fallacy "the DFSG says we don't accept software licenses that discriminate, therefore it's also wrong to discriminate against $foo". First, the only requirement for Debian developers is that you agree to uphold the principles of the DFSG/SC *in your work in Debian*. There is no requirement that you internalize these principles as your personal philosophy, even in terms of the "right" way to develop a free OS. I don't doubt that among our thousand-plus developers, we would find at least some who wouldn't mind it if Debian included software whose license discriminated against particular persons or groups... as long as the persons or groups discriminated against are ones that *they* don't like. Second, even if you accept that the DFSG is the right way to go about licensing an OS, you may believe this for entirely pragmatic reasons: e.g., you believe being inclusive and neutral wrt your userbase increases the market for the OS and the pool of developers and therefore makes Debian better, even if it means you have to tolerate people using your software whom you would prefer to ostracize from the planet (or, even if it means you can't accept software into Debian with such intolerant licensing); or you believe that not allowing discriminatory licenses saves us from a certain class of needless flamewars. Finally, what the DFSG says is that the license must not discriminate against *any* person or group of persons - the scope of this is much greater than "must not discriminate against any groups which are protected classes under US law", or the like; it says /no/ discrimination is allowed, and that's simply not analogous to how any person conducts themselves in their life at large. Debian itself discriminates against people who won't agree to the SC by denying them DD status; I discrminate against Republicans and others who betray the founding principles of the United States for personal profit; we all discriminate against companies that give bad service by trying to avoid giving them our repeat business; and so on. Analogies between the DFSG's "no discrimination" clause and discrimination in our personal or professional lives fall down, because we're just not talking about the same kind of discrimination. So let's please discuss (or not) age discrimination in its own right, and not turn this into "our priorities are old users and free software for babies". -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
