Bah, was trying to hold off on this as long as possible. On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 05:26:17PM +0100, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: > I just read (a large part of) the "Removal of non-free" thread, and I, as a > basic, garden-variety, Debian user, am *frightened*. > > A small bit of background : I have used computers, on and off, since 1974 > (yes, I'm that old). A former oral surgeon, I have done some work in > medical informatics and am presently a biostatistician. While I did a bit > of development a long time ago, I am mostly a basic computer *user* ; what > I write is for the most part a bit of statistical computation routines. > > I have followed Linux since '92 (I probably still have two 3.5" floppies > wit Linux 0.07 sitting somewhere in the basement), and used Debian since > 1.3 days, switching from heavily modified SLS and Slackware distributions.
You seem to technically qualify for the 'point your /etc/apt/sources.list somewhere else' bit. Why do you worry about this at all? > However, I happen to use some non-free software, and evene some > non-Debian commercial software, for practical reasons : I work in a > large organization that has standardized on Windows applications, and > I HAVE TO INTERACT WITH THE REST OF THE ORGANIZATION : I am not paid > by this organization to live in a morally irreproachable ivory tower. > When free (= DFSG-compliant) software allows me to interact, that's > obviously what I do (as a side benefit, the free application is > usually better, but that's not the point). When I receive data in a > proprietary format (Access databases come to mind ..), I CANNOT demand > the sender to switch : I have to cope with it, if only to convert it > to a better format. That's a pity, but I fail to see how this is connected to this proposed ballot. > 1) The original proponent seem to think that cutting support for > non-free software will somehow create an incitation for other, > unspecified, people to write free substitutes. While this may be at > least partially true, it may well have the undesirable side effect of > turning potential users AWAY from free software and free software > distributions. No one in his right mind would use a system that > forbids him to do part of what he has to do. As a user, I do not wish > Debian to become a useless standard of reference. Note that 'non-free' is not, and has never been, part of Debian. > 2) The rhetorics used in this debate (by both sides, BTW) frighten me > : I have seen them used again and again in a lot of (European-style) > political organizations. Especially, the hair splitting on wording of > the DSC reminds me of the worse parliamentary tactics used in both > American and European chambers : using a seemingly formal amendment to > get (respectively to oppose) a deep practical change (something called > "a rider" in American parlance, IIRC) is one of the most efficient > weapons of a technocracy. As a user, I do not wish Debian to become a > technocracy, not even an aristocracy. That's a point I partly share with you. While I believe editorial discussions are important for things like changing the social contract, I believe we're splitting too much hairs in other fields. > 3) The original proposition seems to me a major act of childishness : > it sums up to demanding (potential and actual) users of Debian to use > *only* whant the author feels to be "free software" in *his* > understanding or to use other software with no Debian infrastructure > support at all. This, IMNSHO, is pure, unadulterated, high-school > grade,behaviour : the (potential) user either has to 100% agree with > the proponent or be left out. That behaviour could be tolerated in > kindergarten, not in polite adults' society. As a user, I do not wish > Debian to become a debating society, nor a cult or a sect. We're trying to make a Free Operating System. If you think that's childish, you might want to reevaluate your choice of distribution. > 4) Furthermore, such behaviour may become extremely dangerous : for > example (purposely chosen extreme, I have a point to make), it has > been used by Stalin to evict from the Bolshevik party any people not > totally agreeing with him, thus making said party his tool. As a user, > I do not want Debian to become a dictatorship, even a benign one. Now, here's the slippery slope. In case you're not familar, you've just posted to a mailing list called 'debian-vote'. 'vote'. 'dictatorship'. Are you sure you've thought this bit through? The Debian Developer body is free to vote (in a democratic way) on whatever it pleases. If you want to influence the outcome of the vote, you'll have to become a Debian Developer yourself. > 5) Such behaviour has also locked a lot of political organizations > (left- and right-wing, BTW) out of any real influence on the course of > events : staying on high moral ground and off the real-world > responsibilities has a lot of appeal for some leaders ... Debian might > well fall in this particular trap. As a user, I do not wish Debian to > become a wailing society. As I said above, Debian is bound to make the best Free Operating System possible. The emphasis is on 'Free'. Debian has always been among the avant-garde of the Free Software Movement. On the other hand, by the time the project started, large parts of everybodie's daily work was not possible without non-free software, something the project acknowledged in the Social Contract any by having a 'non-free' section. All we (or at least some of us) are trying to do now is to reevaluate whether non-free software is still so essential for everybody that having it on our own servers is a good measure. Or whether perhaps the low percentage of people who unfortunately still have to rely on non-free can be pointed somewhere else. > 5) On the other hand, I agree that a distinction must be made between > free and non-free software. Being too lax in this respect would > oversee the whole point of Debian. As a user, I do not wish Debian to > become Yet Another Distribution. The destinction has been made since day one. Debian is 100% Free Software. > But I would sternly oppose any proposal tending to (politically) > *enforce* such a substitution. That would require to believe that > "there is no freedom for freedom's foes" (as stated > Fouquier-Tinville), and that would be the end of what Debian aims to > be. In other words, please don't force us to be free ! Nobody forces you not to use your non-free software. Just get it from somewhere else from now on, will you? As a matter of fact, I know a couple of very talented people who refuse to become Debian Developers because of clause #5 in the Social Contract and the distribution of non-free on our ftp-servers. So it's not just about losing people (I wouldn't shear a tear about losing you as a user, after your Stalin remark above, regardless of how many 'PS' you wrote), it's also about possibly gaining people dropping non-free. Michael
