Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Talking about non-free software on the list

[MJ Ray]

Simon Ward <address@hidden>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 03:13:11PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Now, as I mentioned, we're rather snookered with the repository.  Its
> > supporters don't want to move it, its opponents don't really want to
> > work on its content at all, and since the FDL many are ambivalent
> > towards FSF - so who's got any incentive to move it?
> 
> This has more to do with the organisation of the project (which I’m not
> saying is bad). It just shows that not all of the Debian project is as
> committed to free software.

They are committed to free software as almost all agreed to the social
contract to become developers, which is a more explicit commitment
than many free software developers make.  That doesn't mean that they
have to oppose the non-free repository - we didn't get the required
supermajority to phase the non-free repository out completely.

What I'm questioning is how it could be moved away without what you
call "taking a positive action for non‐free software" because those
who would like its move won't want to work on that.  So I feel the
request might be a bit insincere.  Logically, it's a task that no-one
would want to do except someone who supports the FSF more than they
support free software, which seems like it may be an absurdity.

> > Actually, I agree it's distributing non-free software.  That's not the
> > same as the project recommending it (almost the opposite […]), or it
> > being included in the system distribution.
> 
> I disagree. By putting the effort into distributing (and maintaining!)
> non‐free software, Debian is taking a positive action for non‐free
> software.

No, the debian project (not Debian, which is the system) is taking a
positive action to support users who will abuse themselves like this,
whether we help them to avoid damaging themselves or not.

> > That's what we risk if we take this friend-bashing too far.
> 
> Ah, that old chestnut. If classifying distributions based on how they
> meet some guidelines (or not), and suggesting that we should talk about
> them that way, is bashing, we may as well stop now. While we’re at it,
> we can pretend everything that nearly meets those guidelines is “free
> enough” and stop work encouraging them to be more free. [...]

I'm happy with an honest discussion of which bits are making things
move across peoples' lines.  That's not bashing.

I'm delighted if you can see how we can encourage them to be more free.
That's not bashing.

Throwing out example-less accusations which are disproved by published
policy is bashing, though.  Could this be a guideline: if you're going
to accuse a voluntary free software project of some misdeed, give an
example so at least it can be noted as a bug by its volunteers?

Thanks,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/