Hi, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <[email protected]> wrote on 27/04/2026 at 13:45:08+0200:
> Quoting Martin (2026-04-27 10:21:59) >> On 2026-04-27 10:02, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: >> > * Aryan Karamtoth <[email protected]> [260425 11:52]: >> >>We could work with Framework and [..] >> > >> > https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/14/framework_linux_controversy/ >> >> Yes, but... Debian collaborates with far worse companies than >> Framework. Not meant as an excuse. Just pointing out, that we as a >> project lack common ethical standards to decide which companies we >> work with. > > But this "collaboration" is about "we use their resources", either for > computing power or for debconf sponsorships and the like. As far as I > understood previous discussions, the problem is that there are not > many alternatives other than "there will be no debconf" or "then we do > not have CI anymore". The thing the companies get back is some > advertisement and I do not think that's the same as us showing that we > like or support them. I see it as a necessary evil. > > The original proposal is very different though. We don't loose > anything by not collaborating with Framework. Doing so, in my mind, > would imply a far stronger endorsement than when we accept Google as a > DebConf sponsor. What we do give to Google is some advertisement space > on banners and t-shirts. Similarly the page > https://www.debian.org/partners/ lists entities which have given > something back to *us* and in return they get their logo on the page. > > By going out of our way and doing something like adding a "Debian > Certification" we are giving something to them which I feel *very* > uncomfortable giving away to a company like Framework. > > Yes, Sruthi's DPL platform lists laptops pre-installed with Debian as > a goal but it also lists diversity as one of her core principles and > Framework made it very clear that their tent is big enough for even > those people who would rather see this world be less diverse. > > I think I understand that we do put up with some companies because we > decided that we want compute resources and we want debconf to happen, > okay. But we do not *need* to certify hardware and if we do go out of > our way to do it, then maybe lets look very closely to whom we are > providing this service and maybe lets at least start with manufactures > which are more aligned with Debian's principles than Framework is. > > I would love to hear Sruthi's position on this. I'm replying to josch's mail, but not specifically to josch's argument (which is sound: collaborating with framework is /more/ than accepting sponsorship from a company). While I understand the position of most people here, I'm ill-at-ease with the framing (pun) in which most (if not all) of these discussions start and evolve. All in all, there are those stating that anyone is guilty by association should they have an interaction with someone who holds values we do not agree with. And on the opposite side some might be tempted to say "we are already doing X, which is worse, so doing Y is fine" while applying their moral compass in the equation. In the end, this reminds us that the world is still not binary and rather is built on compromises. Josch draws a line that has a lot of sense to me. Yet, if I go beyond the principle, I'm concerned that if we draw the line where it's suggested, and exclude the idea of working with framework today, applying the same framework (pun) in the future will undoubtedly preclude us to work with almost anyone: most if not all companies won't pass a value-alignment test. Except if we want to evolve in our own bubble, I'd suggest that we might want to try formalizing ethical and practical criteria for partnerships and certification so that we can be consistent in the way we handle these interactions. This would allow us to stay credible and avoid unneeded lengthy discussions or flamewars. -- PEB
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
