Bah, was trying to hold off on this as long as possible.
Why ? It's a basic issue, after all ...
Note, I'll edit out some remarks where nothing has been added, marked by "[...]".
[...]
You seem to technically qualify for the 'point your /etc/apt/sources.list somewhere else' bit. Why do you worry about this at all?
Because I somehow doubt that the current technical and social infrastructures behind Debian "non-free" can be currently duplicated "somewhere else".
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.
'Cause I can afford that BECAUSE there exists a "non-free" section with the relevant infrastructure and support, containing the (non-DFSG-free) tools I need currently for my current work. Cutting this support wopuld be a serious issue for me (and, I suspect, a large user community).
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.
This may be true from a lawyer's point of view. And that's fine with me. For practical purposes, the close association of Debian an the "non-free" non-Debian part is "good enough".
[...]
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.
I fail to see how my pleading against the removal of a "non-free" section (which I feel childish) goes against the goal of creating a Free Operating System (TM). Contrarywise, I see the "non-free" section existence as a kind of umpilical cord : wait long enough, it will fall off spontaneously, cut it too soon, you endanger the child. To make the point : the haste IS childish.
And, oh, BTW, the goal of creating a Free Operating System was a major part in my choice of system. The practicality of the "non-free" section was also important.
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.
I didn't ask for a voice (although some structure representing in Debian circles the opinions of end-users might be a *very* good thing !), I just wanted to be heard.
I probably won't fake myself a Debian Developper : I'm 47, have a heavy real-world workload and a family, and my coding days are behind me. What I write is mostly small statistical software, shared with the statistical community through the relevant channels (the R depository), when time comes.
As for the power of the vote : I am pretty aware of the voting procedures in Debian. But I know enough history to be aware of a lot of contries that voted themselves a dictatorship, while keeping the voting process : to stay in the first art of the XXth century, think Italy, Germany and so on ... Even the Bolshevik party statutes had "votes" all over it. The sovietic constitutions acknowledged the vote as the only source of legitimacy, and votes were regularly held. I then have some reasons to think that, while voting is a necessary part of a democracy, it is not sufficient, by a long way. And I won't delve into contemporary examples : there are flames I won't fan ...
Someone else in the list (sorry, I can't recall who and when) seems to share my concerns, and pointed out that further revisions of the Debian fundamental texts might restrict more and more the set of admissible software in Debian. That is partly the point that frightens me ...
>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.
a) How do you (did you ?) measure this "low percentage" ?
b) The proposition is not about *evaluating* such a move. It is about *doing* the move, and postulates that the evaluation has been done and showed that the "non-free" section has no longer practical uses or "enough" (definition ?) users to bother.
In other words, proponents *postulate* (without any form of proof I am aware of) that the reasons having led to the creation of the "non-free" section no longer exist, and propose to move on this basis.
Furthermore, they are bold enough to think that the "unfortunate" (your words, not mine) users of the non-free section should be "pointed somewhere else" (your words, again). That reeks parochialism, even sectarism, to my (admitedly sensitive) nose...
[...]
Nobody forces you not to use your non-free software. Just get it from somewhere else from now on, will you?
Again, I appreciated the support (infrastructure, bug tracking system, etc ...) offered by the non-free section. I would sorely miss it, if only for a couple of packages. And I think I'm not alone.
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.
Okay : now your point is clear : you accept the idea of losing a fraction (unspecified) of non-free users if some other (unspecified) fraction of them move to Free Software (TM). Dropping rethorics, I prefer not to qualify such an attitude. It stands for itself.
And, yes, it still frightens me.
Emmanuel Charpentier -- Emmanuel Charpentier
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
