Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
I think it's not necessary that a developer agree with the DFSG. It should be enough that they indicate they understand it and will abide by it in what they produce for debian. -- see shy jo
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
Joey Hess wrote: I think it's not necessary that a developer agree with the DFSG. It should be enough that they indicate they understand it and will abide by it in what they produce for debian. Yes, but OTOH, it's a little hard to fathom why someone would *want* to work on Debian if they didn't agree with at least the basic outlines of the DFSG and the Social Contract cheers -- Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the or[EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
Joey Hess wrote: I think it's not necessary that a developer agree with the DFSG. It should be enough that they indicate they understand it and will abide by it in what they produce for debian. Then, Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but OTOH, it's a little hard to fathom why someone would *want* to work on Debian if they didn't agree with at least the basic outlines of the DFSG and the Social Contract Of course, you're both right. Therefore, we should require that developers understand and abide by the DFSG, and let the rest take care of itself. Brian
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
Hi, [I am not disagreeing entirely] Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joey I think it's not necessary that a developer agree with the Joey DFSG. It should be enough that they indicate they understand it Joey and will abide by it in what they produce for debian. Hmm. Quite, as long as they are aware that abiding may well mean refraining from internecine and recurring debate on the merits, and indeed, the validity, of the social contract and the DFSG creatre a great deal of fdriction, and may indeed run contrary to the expectations placed on Debian developers. I have hassle enough expaining and defending the concept of free software elsewhere to contemplate with equamity the prospect of having to defend it here, of all places, from a brother in the cause, of all people. manoj -- Of course, someone who knows more about this will correct me if I'm wrong, and someone who knows less will correct me if I'm right. David Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
Hi Steve and Manoj, Probably. I guess I just like a little more enthusiasm than I'll abide by the rules. Steve, I'm sorry I gave you that impression. I'm always talking about how great Debian is to my colleagues and always try to convince them to try and use Debian. You may not think so but I am always trying to promote Debian as a better alternative to the usual OS my colleagues use. I hope that you and everyone believe me when I say that. Manoj, please don't feel that you have you defend the DFSG and free software in general to me (was I the brother in the cause?). There really is no need. This isn't the first time my objectivity has gotten me into flame wars, although it was never my intent to start any of them. In fact, when I first started using Debian you and I had a little spat because of my objectivity. I tell you what, I do not want to cause any trouble in Debian so in the future I will try to be more careful about causing such a raucous; no more analogies and examples, or at least I'll try. Fair enough guys? If so, then let's end this thread on a good note. :) -Ossama __ Ossama Othman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 58 60 1A E8 7A 66 F4 44 74 9F 3C D4 EF BF 35 88 1024/8A04D15D 1998/08/26
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 12:38:26PM -0600, Ossama Othman wrote: It is amazing how people so are ready to snap at something that isn't as bad as they make it seem. Please don't start quoting what I said. I know what I said and I know what I meant. You are taking what I said way out of context and taking it too literally. Rather then ask me what exactly I meant you chose to lash out me. Please don't start quoting what [you] said? Are you on drugs? [You] know what [you] said So do we. [You] know what [you] meant. Ah. That, no one else knows. We must rely upon your facility with the English language to communicate your ideas a manner that properly conveys your meaning. Clearly you are having trouble with that. Manoj, Marcus, myself, and other members of the Debian community are likely all growing tired of your rhetorical games. You say something outrageous, like, let's assume we all live in a police state. Then when someone takes you to task for presenting hypotheticals that are destructive to the concept of analogy, you simply backpedal and claim you were quoted out of context. You seem content to argue for the sake of argument with anyone who dares who dares disagree with you. This is much closer to ideological Stalinism than anything you could reasonably accuse the Debian Project of. Let's not assume we all live in a police state, okay? Debian is a volunteer organization. There is absolutely no way anyone is required to be a member or abide by our rules in any context outside of Debian itself. Even the Debian *Constitution*, for crying out loud, explicitly states that it places no burden upon any member of Debian to do anything at all. Debian is not a catch-all for people who don't Red Hat, or some other Linux distribution. Debian predates most of the Linux distributions in existence, having been founded in 1993, and is about something. It's about the ideals presented in our social contract. No one demands that you, as an individual human being with rights, accept the Debian social contract in any way, shape or form. Keep in mind, however, that the social contract is a *contract*, and thus implies an exchange. In a free society, contracts are drawn up between parties who seek to trade things of value among each other. This implies mutual benefit, mutual gain. If you don't like the contract, you don't have to be a party to it. That means, however, that you don't get the benefits. The benefits of belonging to Debian are that you have the opportunity to contribute to our project. You have the right to create Debian packages. You get the right to have an account on master.debian.org and an email account. Perhaps most importantly, you get to belong to a movement, however small, that would make the world a little better place, in that strange little niche called computer software. For some Debian developers, all of these benefits are just perks. They just want to be left in peace to develop software, hack, keep machines running, or otherwise please their muse. They see that the DFSG and the social contract are not in conflict with that, they have no fundamental problem with the documents, and they go about doing what makes them happy. No one loses. There are many ways you can accounts on machines, an electronic mailbox, and make the world a better place. You can volunteer your free time to a dizzying array of other causes. If you want to be a part of Debian, though, you do give up a little bit of absolute liberty. This is true of all social contracts. Most people are willing to give absolute liberty to maim and kill their fellow man in exchange for the protection of their neighbors. (Sometimes, they get to indulge their animal natures anyway by maiming and killing as a member of some sactioned armed forces, but I digress...) Debian is not the bottom of the Linux distribution seive. We're not here to catch all the fuck-offs and misfits who couldn't cut it anywhere else. The fact that we're a lot more easygoing that many groups of software developers doesn't mean we have no standards at all. In fact, as you've noticed, when it comes to certain ideological principles, we're a lot more coherent than our rivals. If you want to change Debian, that's fine. Debian changes all the time, sometimes in pretty important ways. You can be a part of that process. But first you have to make up your mind that Debian is already close enough to what you want to see that it's worth it to you to work within its system. If not, there may be some other group that better approximates your ideals, or you may have to start from scratch. We are not all promised an obedient horde of followers from birth. Here's another couple of analogies for you. Debian is a boat with many oars in the water. You and I are just one oar. If no one else wants to paddle, I can't accomplish much by myself. Here's a better one. Debian is inertial. To change its velocity, you have to apply force.
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
Hi Steve, If Debian *stops* making sure that new developers agree[1] with the DFSG, then think *I'd* reconsider my developer status. If you don't agree[1] with the DFSG, why on earth do you want to be a Debian developer? Now, when I joined, there was no DFSG or social contract, Because I believe in free (insert my definition :) software and want to contribute to it. Steve, forgive me for giving you a brief response. However, I believe that I have justified my beliefs concerning the DFSG throughout the course of this thread and rather hoped that this thread had ended. Free thought is good thing, not a bad thing. Just because I joined Debian doesn't mean that I should have to abandon my opinions. I will abide by the DFSG even though there are some (very few) things that I disagree with. I do agree with the spirit of the DFSG, but not all of its contents. Steve, please don't misconstrue the tone of this message. I'm not trying to snap back at you or anything of the like. I'm a big fan of Debian and only want to see it grow and succeed. One tired developer, :) -Ossama
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
Hi, Ossama == Ossama Othman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ossama I was referring to the fact that many of the developers Ossama strongly felt that I should agree with the DFSG, i.e. not Ossama have my own opinion of it. I was under the imprtession that that was a requirement of the new maintainer process? The DFSG is critical to the core of debian, it is what makes Debian what it is. And even though diversity of opinion is indeed laudable, there has to be a basis for understanding and cooperation, without which an effort like Debian would crumble. If we all can't even agree about something as critical as the social contract and the DFSG, then indeed we have a problem. manoj -- I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos. Albert Einstein, on the randomness of quantum mechanics Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ossama Othman) wrote: Those with opinions that differ from the mainstream should not be branded heretics or encouraged to leave. Why not? When views of people differ in detail ,there is basis for a dialogue. When even the fundamentals are contested, there is no common ground to build anything out of. (An extreme example is the white supremascist who went around trashing martin luther king, jr, in an alabama group this last weekend -- his views on racsm are so far from mine that there is no point even trying to interact with him). Admttedly, the situation we have here is not anywhere near as extreme as all that, but in pinciple I see nothing inherently wrong about the project insisting that there be some basis or commonality of philosophy in the candidates that are approved for inclusion in the group of developers, if only to prevent anarchy as the project is torn apart by wildly differing factions. The DFSG defines what Deban stands for. Asking developers to agree with it is not uncalled for. manoj -- No job too big; no fee too big! Dr. Peter Venkman, Ghost-busters Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
Hi, Ossama == Ossama Othman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ossama If we all agreed on the DFSG then how would change ever Ossama occur? Why is it so necesary for any change to occur? And most of the developers I talked to were in favour of clarifying the DFSG, not changing the contents. Ossama The DFSG is currently being modified due in part to Ossama disagreement, isn't it? Nope. An attempt s being made to reword it so that it is easy to see Ossama Difference of opinion can be a good thing. It can fuel Ossama progress. It can also hinder it but it but is up to us to Ossama ensure that progress is made. We shouldn't just avoid such a Ossama situation by attempting to ensure that everyone agrees. Why not? I think that in this case the divisiveness far outweighs any percieved ``progress'' to be made by people who disagree with the spirit of the DFSG. Ossama Please understand that what I am saying is that it should be Ossama alright for developers to have different opinions of the DFSG Ossama or whatever else. However, if they want to be Debian Ossama developers then they should abide the Social Contract and the Ossama DFSG but not necessarily agree with them. I think that a group of people putting out a distribution that holds the line on freedom of software can ill afford to have in their ranks people who are second guessing the validity of holding the line. manoj holding down a hard line -- Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed. Lazarus Long, from Robert Heinlein's _Time Enough For Love_ Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
Hi Manoj, I was under the imprtession that that was a requirement of the new maintainer process? The DFSG is critical to the core of debian, it is what makes Debian what it is. And even though diversity of opinion is indeed laudable, there has to be a basis for understanding and cooperation, without which an effort like Debian would crumble. If we all can't even agree about something as critical as the social contract and the DFSG, then indeed we have a problem. I can see why agreement is so crucial but is it realistic to think that everyone will agree with the DFSG or the Social Contract. Just to be clear, what I mean by agree with the DFSG and the social contract is agree with certain parts of the them. I am not at all saying that the DFSG and the Social Contract should be done away with. I believe that it is very crucial, if not necessary, for developers to agree with the spirit of both of them, not necessarily all of their contents. of them. The contents of the DFSG and perhaps the Social Contract are not carved in stone. Agreement with their contents will vary as they change. However, the goal or spirit (not necessarily the same) of the DFSG and Social Contract probably won't change, and it is that spirit I agree enthusiastically with and support. For the record, I have no problems with the Social Contract or its contents. :) -Ossama
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
Hi Manoj, Ossama If we all agreed on the DFSG then how would change ever Ossama occur? Why is it so necesary for any change to occur? I meant if the need for change ever arose. And most of the developers I talked to were in favour of clarifying the DFSG, not changing the contents. I guess it depends on how you look at it, clarifying may mean changing the contents or vice versa, thought not necessarily either. I am in favor in of clarification, too. Perhaps my interpretation of clarification is different. Ossama The DFSG is currently being modified due in part to Ossama disagreement, isn't it? Nope. An attempt s being made to reword it so that it is easy to see Thanks for the clarification! :) Ossama Difference of opinion can be a good thing. It can fuel Ossama progress. It can also hinder it but it but is up to us to Ossama ensure that progress is made. We shouldn't just avoid such a Ossama situation by attempting to ensure that everyone agrees. Why not? I think that in this case the divisiveness far outweighs any percieved ``progress'' to be made by people who disagree with the spirit of the DFSG. Ah! I didn't say disagree with the spirit of the DFSG. I said disagree with certain parts of what the DFSG dictates. The spirit of the DFSG and what it dicatates are not necessarily the same, at least from my point of view. Ossama Please understand that what I am saying is that it should be Ossama alright for developers to have different opinions of the DFSG Ossama or whatever else. However, if they want to be Debian Ossama developers then they should abide the Social Contract and the Ossama DFSG but not necessarily agree with them. I think that a group of people putting out a distribution that holds the line on freedom of software can ill afford to have in their ranks people who are second guessing the validity of holding the line. Who's second guessing? I do not think that I am second guessing. On the contrary I only wish to improve only if I feel improvement is needed. My vision of free software may not be the same as yours or everyone elses. I am going to hold the line of freedom that I envision while I at the same time abiding by the DFSG and Social Contract. If that isn't possible then I will gladly move on. However, I think that it is entirely possible to feel that way. manoj holding down a hard line Indeed you are. That's great! :) -Ossama
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
Hi Manoj, Those with opinions that differ from the mainstream should not be branded heretics or encouraged to leave. Why not? Isn't that rather extreme? :) When views of people differ in detail ,there is basis for a dialogue. When even the fundamentals are contested, there is no common ground to build anything out of. (An extreme example is the white supremascist who went around trashing martin luther king, jr, in an alabama group this last weekend -- his views on racsm are so far from mine that there is no point even trying to interact with him). Admttedly, the situation we have here is not anywhere near as extreme as all that, but in pinciple I see nothing inherently wrong about the project insisting that there be some basis or commonality of philosophy in the candidates that are approved for inclusion in the group of developers, if only to prevent anarchy as the project is torn apart by wildly differing factions. Philosophy of the DFSG is fine but asking someone to agree word for word with any declaration or statement is asking for a lot. I am going to give an extreme example too so please bear with me. Let's assume that we live in a police state where speaking up against the law is unheard of and punishable. Which would you prefer: living in a society where people follow the laws but speak up if the law isn't a fair one in their opinion, or would you prefer the police state? I greatly prefer the society where one is allowed to speak up. Do we want Debian to be a police state of sorts? I admit that this is an extreme analogy but I think that it conveys what I am trying to say. The DFSG defines what Deban stands for. Asking developers to agree with it is not uncalled for. What do you mean by agree? With its spirit or its contents? Asking them to agree with its spirit is fine. Asking them to abide by the DFSG is fine. However asking them to agree with everything it says isn't fair and reflects negatively on Debian as an organization that stands for software freedom. -Ossama __ Ossama Othman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 58 60 1A E8 7A 66 F4 44 74 9F 3C D4 EF BF 35 88 1024/8A04D15D 1998/08/26 manoj -- No job too big; no fee too big! Dr. Peter Venkman, Ghost-busters Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 06:19:46PM -0600, Ossama Othman wrote: Hi Craig, I get the impression that my objectivity is being misinterpreted again. not sure what you mean by that. i thought i was quite careful to state that i was using a generic you in my examples, and not referring to you personally. if you got that impression, then i apologise because that was not what i intended. IMHO, the idea that developer's should agree with the DSFG and/or the social contract in their entirety is dangerous and will only hinder Debian. I don't agree with all of Debian's policies, nor should I have to. However, I became a Debian developer knowing full well what Debian's policies are and I will follow them. i agree. i don't think developers have to 100% agree with every single one of debian's policies. I do think, however, that developers should agree to abide by debian policies, and working within debian's constitution to effect any changes, and (more importantly) they should agree with the spirit of the social contract and DFSG. unfortunately, spirit is an ill-defined and nebulous thing, hard to pin down exactly. The Social Contract and the DFSG are a good attempt to define debian's spirit. When I can longer do so, and that may never happen, I will leave. This isn't a threat or anything of the sort. your comments about leaving when/if you can no longer agree with debian's policies is kind of what i meant. i don't think anyone should be kicked out (except perhaps for extreme cases, which i cant/dont want to imagine right now), but that their own priorities for what they feel worthy of donating the time/energy to, and perhaps their own sense of honour, will make the decision to leave. similarly, i think that people who don't have a committment to debian's spirit shouldn't join up as developers in the first place. they should find somewhere more in tune with their own beliefs...they'd be happier and more productive, and so would we. BTW, people have left debian in the past for several reasons - including running out of time (i.e they graduated or got a new job), and also over major disagreements in direction. some have gone on to do other, equally worthwhile and valuable work either by themselves or in another group. My concern is that Debian is becoming (almost) elitist. what's wrong with elitism :-) there's too much mediocrity in the world. more elitist high quality stuff is needed. Some people are flat out saying conform or get out, in a sense. Is this really a healthy attitude for Debian to have? i think you are greatly exaggerating the strength of the comments that have been made. OTOH, if someone ever did something seriously damaging to debian i would hope that they did have the decency to voluntary get out without dragging us all into a huge fight over whether they should be kicked out or not. I happen to admire Debian a great deal. If I feel that Debian may be doing something that may hurt itself then I will speak up about it, just as any Debian user should. yes. should is the right word here. The fact that my opinions go against what is apparently the Debian mainstream way of thinking doesn't mean that I should leave. however, if (after you have had your say) the majority of developers think you are wrong and the vote goes against you then you should either a) shut up about it for a reasonable period of time - several months at least, or b) voluntary leave if you can't do (a). If used properly, diversity of opinion should only help Debian. Those with opinions that differ from the mainstream should not be branded heretics or encouraged to leave. you could have the debian chicken (in a slashed-circle) branded across your forehead. we should put that in our constitution. heretics to be branded and marched out with a cattle-prod. maybe have different brands for the different heresies so that all can see at a glance what kind of perversion the branded one will try to lead them into. btw, if you think that paragraph needed a smilie then you need to get out more and relax a bit. craig -- craig sanders
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
Hi Craig, I get the impression that my objectivity is being misinterpreted again. not sure what you mean by that. i thought i was quite careful to state that i was using a generic you in my examples, and not referring to you personally. if you got that impression, then i apologise because that was not what i intended. There is no need to apologize Craig. I understood that you were using the generic you. I just thought that you misunderstood what I was trying to say. My bad. :) i agree. i don't think developers have to 100% agree with every single one of debian's policies. I do think, however, that developers should agree to abide by debian policies, and working within debian's constitution to effect any changes, and (more importantly) they should agree with the spirit of the social contract and DFSG. I wholeheartedly agree! unfortunately, spirit is an ill-defined and nebulous thing, hard to pin down exactly. The Social Contract and the DFSG are a good attempt to define debian's spirit. Very true. In general the DFSG and the Social Contract seem to do a good job of attempting to define Debian's spirit. I agree with you again! your comments about leaving when/if you can no longer agree with debian's policies is kind of what i meant. i don't think anyone should be kicked out (except perhaps for extreme cases, which i cant/dont want to imagine right now), but that their own priorities for what they feel worthy of donating the time/energy to, and perhaps their own sense of honour, will make the decision to leave. It seems that we have had some misunderstandings. I am very happy that things are clearer now. similarly, i think that people who don't have a committment to debian's spirit shouldn't join up as developers in the first place. they should find somewhere more in tune with their own beliefs...they'd be happier and more productive, and so would we. Ditto! BTW, people have left debian in the past for several reasons - including running out of time (i.e they graduated or got a new job), and also over major disagreements in direction. some have gone on to do other, equally worthwhile and valuable work either by themselves or in another group. Yep, I remember one notable one. My concern is that Debian is becoming (almost) elitist. what's wrong with elitism :-) there's too much mediocrity in the world. more elitist high quality stuff is needed. Well, when you put it that way... :) Some people are flat out saying conform or get out, in a sense. Is this really a healthy attitude for Debian to have? i think you are greatly exaggerating the strength of the comments that have been made. Perhaps you are right. I don't recall my state of mind when I made that comment ...heh, I have no recollection of that... OTOH, if someone ever did something seriously damaging to debian i would hope that they did have the decency to voluntary get out without dragging us all into a huge fight over whether they should be kicked out or not. One more agreement from me! The fact that my opinions go against what is apparently the Debian mainstream way of thinking doesn't mean that I should leave. however, if (after you have had your say) the majority of developers think you are wrong and the vote goes against you then you should either a) shut up about it for a reasonable period of time - several months at least, or b) voluntary leave if you can't do (a). I'd agree with you more about this if more developers were more vocal about how they feel. Right now less then a quarter of the developers seem to express their opinion or even vote (someone correct me if I am wrong). If used properly, diversity of opinion should only help Debian. Those with opinions that differ from the mainstream should not be branded heretics or encouraged to leave. you could have the debian chicken (in a slashed-circle) branded across your forehead. we should put that in our constitution. heretics to be branded and marched out with a cattle-prod. maybe have different brands for the different heresies so that all can see at a glance what kind of perversion the branded one will try to lead them into. btw, if you think that paragraph needed a smilie then you need to get out more and relax a bit. LOL! No, no, you didn't need a smilie face. That was really funny! Does this mean I don't need to relax more? :) You know, we should send some of debian chicken t-shirts to a certain software company we all know. Thanks for the discussion and clarification Craig! -Ossama __ Ossama Othman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 58 60 1A E8 7A 66 F4 44 74 9F 3C D4 EF BF 35 88 1024/8A04D15D 1998/08/26
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 01:16:36AM -0600, Ossama Othman wrote: Let's assume that we live in a police state where speaking up against the law is unheard of and punishable. Which would you prefer: living in a society where people follow the laws but speak up if the law isn't a fair one in their opinion, or would you prefer the police state? I greatly prefer the society where one is allowed to speak up. Do we want Debian to be a police state of sorts? I admit that this is an extreme analogy but I think that it conveys what I am trying to say. Hell, what are you TALKING about Debian is a voluntary organization. If participation in the police state is voluntary, I don't care a penny if you can speak up or not, because I would not be there. You are free to enter and to leave Debian. As long as you stay with Debian, you have to follow some rules and share some visions. In all police states I know of, leaving is not as easy. Your analogy is not only inappropriate (as Debian is no physical thing like a country) but completely absurd and so far off topic, that I have to wonder if you had all your senses together writing this. Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
Hi Marcus, Hell, what are you TALKING about Debian is a voluntary organization. If participation in the police state is voluntary, I don't care a penny if you can speak up or not, because I would not be there. You are free to enter and to leave Debian. As long as you stay with Debian, you have to follow some rules and share some visions. In all police states I know of, leaving is not as easy. Your analogy is not only inappropriate (as Debian is no physical thing like a country) but completely absurd and so far off topic, that I have to wonder if you had all your senses together writing this. It is amazing how people so are ready to snap at something that isn't as bad as they make it seem. Please don't start quoting what I said. I know what I said and I know what I meant. You are taking what I said way out of context and taking it too literally. Rather then ask me what exactly I meant you chose to lash out me. Come on guys, I may some things that seem way off base but I definitely agree with the spirit of the DFSG, the Social Contract and the Constitution. I don't want to do a total rewrite of the DFSG or anything close to that. I started out with one suggestion that we change non-free to some other name. Good arguments were made against such a change. I suggested a compromise which seemed like a good one, or at least it wasn't bad. The fact of the matter is that I was convinced that changing non-free may not be such a good thing to do. Since then, I've been arguing philosophical points since the thread went on. However, they seem to be taken too literally. I didn't become a developer with my eyes closed. I was a debian user for some time prior to my becoming a developer. On top of that I followed most of the discussions on debian-devel, so I was aware of what Debian was about. Leaving Debian or threatening to leave Debian are not at all things I was going to do. In general I am happy with Debian and its goals. -Ossama
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 12:38:26PM -0600, Ossama Othman wrote: It is amazing how people so are ready to snap at something that isn't as bad as they make it seem. Please don't start quoting what I said. I know what I said and I know what I meant. You are taking what I said way out of context and taking it too literally. Rather then ask me what exactly I meant you chose to lash out me. You must have noted that I have not said anything about the current thread. This was intentionally, I think all things have been said about it. It is dead. What set me up was that you continue to talk about this issue without making any new points, but rather stretching it in directions which have nothing to do with the issue at hand anymore. What you said was already out of context, which is the only point I wanted to make. I understand what you meant, and I already wrote what I think about it in prior mails. Thanks, Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 02:32:45AM -0600, Ossama Othman wrote: The fact that my opinions go against what is apparently the Debian mainstream way of thinking doesn't mean that I should leave. however, if (after you have had your say) the majority of developers think you are wrong and the vote goes against you then you should either a) shut up about it for a reasonable period of time - several months at least, or b) voluntary leave if you can't do (a). I'd agree with you more about this if more developers were more vocal about how they feel. Right now less then a quarter of the developers seem to express their opinion or even vote (someone correct me if I am wrong). what this means is that less than a quarter of developers care enough about specific issues to argue it or vote about it. that's no surprise, most developers have time to work on one or two (or a dozen or more) packages but are not at all interested in the political bullshit. ignore the silent majority (and especially ignore anyone claiming to represent them). this is as important in debian as it is in the real world. in debian, the silent majority have their opportunity to debate issues just like anyone else. they have their opportunity to vote. if they choose not to debate or vote, then they either don't care or are just wishing people would stop crapping on and wasting everyone's time. or something else. but whatever it is they think is irrelevant - an abstain vote is neither for or against...it is not counted at all. craig ps: debian-devel isn't a philosophy debating society. -- craig sanders
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 09:01:38AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: what this means is that less than a quarter of developers care enough about specific issues to argue it or vote about it. that's no surprise, most developers have time to work on one or two (or a dozen or more) packages but are not at all interested in the political bullshit. ^^^ That's me:- Regarding this issue - look, it is the Debian FREE Software guidelines, not the Debian DFSG Guidelines... If someone is offended by this, they are too thin skinned anyway. There are a lot of things Debian needs - another flamewar on another silly issue isn't one of them. Go write some code. -- David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
Hi Craig, I get the impression that my objectivity is being misinterpreted again. IMHO, the idea that developer's should agree with the DSFG and/or the social contract in their entirety is dangerous and will only hinder Debian. I don't agree with all of Debian's policies, nor should I have to. However, I became a Debian developer knowing full well what Debian's policies are and I will follow them. When I can longer do so, and that may never happen, I will leave. This isn't a threat or anything of the sort. My concern is that Debian is becoming (almost) elitist. Some people are flat out saying conform or get out, in a sense. Is this really a healthy attitude for Debian to have? I am not trying to create some sort of Debian revolution or upheaval. I am merely expressing my opinions, as unpopular as they may be. It is unfortunate that people sometimes respond harshly when there is no need to so. I happen to admire Debian a great deal. If I feel that Debian may be doing something that may hurt itself then I will speak up about it, just as any Debian user should. The fact that my opinions go against what is apparently the Debian mainstream way of thinking doesn't mean that I should leave. Mainstreamers may try to convince me that I am wrong but I am going to do the same if I disagree with something. There should be nothing wrong with not agreeing with the mainstream or certain Debian policies. If used properly, diversity of opinion should only help Debian. Those with opinions that differ from the mainstream should not be branded heretics or encouraged to leave. -Ossama __ Ossama Othman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 58 60 1A E8 7A 66 F4 44 74 9F 3C D4 EF BF 35 88 1024/8A04D15D 1998/08/26
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 06:19:46PM -0600, Ossama Othman wrote: I get the impression that my objectivity is being misinterpreted again. IMHO, the idea that developer's should agree with the DSFG and/or the social contract in their entirety is dangerous and will only hinder Debian. I don't agree with all of Debian's policies, nor should I have to. But you should agree with our social contract, right? That is, after all, what the point of a social contract /is/, isn't it? That we'll all abide by it? Agreeing with the DFSG in a fairly important part of that -- our major aim is to produce a free system, and if we can't even agree on what that means then we're not going to get *anywhere*. I'm not /entirely/ sure what you're referring to here, though. I haven't seen anyone telling anyone that they shouldn't be a part of Debian because they don't think the DFSG is perfect, but I don't read every piece of mail on every list. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.'' pgp1l29fbYzyI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
Hi Anthony, But you should agree with our social contract, right? That is, after all, what the point of a social contract /is/, isn't it? That we'll all abide by it? Agreeing and abiding aren't the same thing. A developer may not agree with the social contract but s/he should certainly abide by it. By the way, I have no problems with the Social Contract, my gripes were with certain parts of the DFSG but certainly not all of it. Agreeing with the DFSG in a fairly important part of that -- our major aim is to produce a free system, and if we can't even agree on what that means then we're not going to get *anywhere*. If we all agreed on the DFSG then how would change ever occur? The DFSG is currently being modified due in part to disagreement, isn't it? Difference of opinion can be a good thing. It can fuel progress. It can also hinder it but it but is up to us to ensure that progress is made. We shouldn't just avoid such a situation by attempting to ensure that everyone agrees. Please understand that what I am saying is that it should be alright for developers to have different opinions of the DFSG or whatever else. However, if they want to be Debian developers then they should abide the Social Contract and the DFSG but not necessarily agree with them. -Ossama
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ossama Othman) wrote: If used properly, diversity of opinion should only help Debian. With all due respect, if you think that there is no diversity of opinion in Debian, then you haven't been around here for very long. Those with opinions that differ from the mainstream should not be branded heretics or encouraged to leave. Now, play fair. I was under the impression that Craig's statements were merely a friendly suggestion and not meant to pressure anyone out of the project. Of course, nobody is requiring every member to surrender his or her opinions. However, I'm sure that you will agree, requiring our members to understand and comply with Debian's goals, motivation, and policy are essential if we are to accomplish anything as a group. Besides, is it fair to label opinions that happen to agree with the mainstream as elitist? I'll admit that sometimes certain individuals may be overly curt, but I think that this comes from having to debate the same things over and over. (I myself can recall twice before when someone has suggested that we rename non-free, but of course, I could have missed a few of these discussions.) These things do get old after awhile. Brian
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
Hi Brian, If used properly, diversity of opinion should only help Debian. With all due respect, if you think that there is no diversity of opinion in Debian, then you haven't been around here for very long. I was referring to the fact that many of the developers strongly felt that I should agree with the DFSG, i.e. not have my own opinion of it. So, with all due respect, please don't understand me so fast. :) Those with opinions that differ from the mainstream should not be branded heretics or encouraged to leave. Now, play fair. I was under the impression that Craig's statements were merely a friendly suggestion and not meant to pressure anyone out of the project. Of course, nobody is requiring every member to surrender his or her opinions. However, I'm sure that you will agree, requiring our members to understand and comply with Debian's goals, motivation, and policy are essential if we are to accomplish anything as a group. I was referring specifically to Craig. Rather I was referring to some of the statements that were made by several developers about if you don't agree then you should consider leaving or something along those lines. If I gave you the impression that I was singling out or attacking Craig then I apologize for that. I do admit that it is hard to keep calm when everyone seems to disagree with you. So, if I came off as attacking Craig then please excuse me. I agree with you about understanding and complying with Debian's goals, which is why I abide by them. But, does that mean that I have to agree with them? Besides, is it fair to label opinions that happen to agree with the mainstream as elitist? I'll admit that sometimes certain individuals may be overly curt, but I think that this comes from having to debate the same things over and over. (I myself can recall twice before when someone has suggested that we rename non-free, but of course, I could have missed a few of these discussions.) These things do get old after awhile. No, it is not at all fair to label opinions that happen to agree with the mainstream as elitist. What is not fair is to encourage people to leave if they don't agree. That is what I meant by being elitist. I agree with you about the overly curt individuals so I it is probably my own fault for being so sensitive about how they respond. I do truly try to respond in a calm fashion, although I don't always succeed. I didn't realize that renaming non-free was suggested before. Why didn't anyone tell me? Think of all the headaches I could have avoided! :) Thanks for the discussion Brian, -Ossama
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
Hi, I wrote: I was referring specifically to Craig. Rather I was referring to some of Sorry, that should have been I was NOT referring specifically to Craig. Boy am I going to hear it for this foul up! :)
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
I ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: With all due respect, if you think that there is no diversity of opinion in Debian, then you haven't been around here for very long. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ossama Othman) responded: I was referring to the fact that many of the developers strongly felt that I should agree with the DFSG, i.e. not have my own opinion of it. So, with all due respect, please don't understand me so fast. :) I was merely trying to point out that we have flame wars ... ahem ... disagreements on these lists all of the time. I just wanted you to know that you are far from the only person who has made a suggestion and received several negative responses. It happens all of the time. Please don't get the impression, however, that we always reject new ideas. Often a suggestion receives an enthusiastic response. Whether anything changes (i.e., whether someone does the work to implement a new proposal) is another matter. ... I was not referring specifically to Craig. Rather I was referring to some of the statements that were made by several developers about if you don't agree then you should consider leaving or something along those lines. If I gave you the impression that I was singling out or attacking Craig then I apologize for that. I do admit that it is hard to keep calm when everyone seems to disagree with you. So, if I came off as attacking Craig then please excuse me. There is really no need to apologize. However, it is my experience that almost all of these type of suggestions are (at least) in the spirit of: This is how many of us feel, and if you are uncomfortable with this, then perhaps you would feel more comfortable with some of the other groups that currently exist. I have rarely seen examples of anyone trying for force someone out of the group, and of those situations where it does come across this way, I believe that it is almost always a case of the author becoming carried away an overly heated argument rather than an actual sincere attempt to force anyone out. I agree with you about understanding and complying with Debian's goals, which is why I abide by them. ... and is why I said I'm sure that you will agree (with me not necessarily the DFSG). But, does that mean that I have to agree with them? Of course not! We don't want robots. We want individuals who are willing to work towards a common goal. Anything constructive that you bring to the project is welcome. However, you should realize that an endevor like this, which is a labor of love, inspires strong passions and ideals, and these are some of the things that you will encounter when you deal with other members of the Debian project. I do truly try to respond in a calm fashion, although I don't always succeed. Don't worry. Nobody expects you to be perfect. Besides, you were polite, which is something that is always more than welcome on the Internet. Discussion, even of the same old things, is a good thing. I didn't realize that renaming non-free was suggested before. Why didn't anyone tell me? Think of all the headaches I could have avoided! :) I was kind of wondering the same thing myself. Brian
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 19-Jan-99 Ossama Othman wrote: My concern is that Debian is becoming (almost) elitist. Some people are flat out saying conform or get out, in a sense. Is this really a healthy attitude for Debian to have? I am not trying to create some sort of Debian revolution or upheaval. I am merely expressing my opinions, as unpopular as they may be. It is unfortunate that people sometimes respond harshly when there is no need to so. Just because *some* of the people are acting elitist doesn't mean Debian is heading that way. In any organization, there are going to be a percentage of people who take the conform or get out attitude and some of those will even be vocal. That happens in every group from Debian to regligion to politics. They aren't (necessarily) the ones that matter. The people who matter are the handful or so that are active above and beyond. Out of the well over 300 (it's somewhere between 380 and 450) developers we have in Debian, about 80 voted in the constitution election.. Not even that many have voted (yet) in the leadership election. These are the people who set the true tone of Debian and it's policy. When the majority of these people act elitist... do we have to be worried about Debian being elitist. If used properly, diversity of opinion should only help Debian. Those with opinions that differ from the mainstream should not be branded heretics or encouraged to leave. Don't let a few vocal people who speak out against an idea, color that idea as bad. For the most part, Debian people don't AOLMe Too/AOL and so the majority of the responses you (or anyone) is going to get will be critical to one degree or another. = * http://benham.net/index.html * * * -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- ---* *Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++ P+++$ L++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b DI+++ D++ * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * G++G+++ e h+ r* y+* * * --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- ---* = -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNqQzDrbps1lIfUYBAQHTNAP9GgAMdAx6UgArrERKPNamMNE3SF+qXEaV dpPNcw3VyTqK1JUlI2XHlDfgxkyI9hgJDEP5YRxKmjCfZ5TCehfzbKm658dZ80rb TSoaIuHj7Kv4FwssTHccIjZbP6APusxpk4tU0z0/RnfUJrAjSvpITQDDFBa0FhMS 2hNT4x6d+PI= =82Zp -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free -- non-dfsg)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 19-Jan-99 Anthony Towns wrote: Agreeing with the DFSG in a fairly important part of that -- our major aim is to produce a free system, and if we can't even agree on what that means then we're not going to get *anywhere*. Not necessarily. Agreeing to abide by the DFSG is more important than agreeing with the DFSG. Many people don't agree with the patch clause but they accept it as part of the DFSG and abide by it because Debian as a whole has accepted it into the current DFSG. = * http://benham.net/index.html * * * -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- ---* *Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++ P+++$ L++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b DI+++ D++ * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * G++G+++ e h+ r* y+* * * --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- ---* = -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNqQzxrbps1lIfUYBAQHu+gP/SnBoR3jkOLzYwihUxqwkc024mWRRYg50 IBxDOKdvTlZrp5i9YgpR9fRdbbWuI+yJpeLlDYQRNTqO8sR5aYvJATMHgIF2GURy nqGaIZlNp6qIIKURV2umHJ8niylRR2z7ZT+7RhRMJoYE45TGiuV2ObYIspqrv3gn 5gUo4CEEgmo= =Ht9g -END PGP SIGNATURE-
