"J.B. Nicholson" jbn@forestfield.org writes:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
they're doing the best that they believe they can do, but they _have_ been told. see joey hess's very public description of the Debian Charter as a "toxic document".
I've seen https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/11/msg00174.html where Hess makes this statement but I haven't seen anything written by Hess clearly explaining why the Debian Constitution is "toxic".
Where would I find something written by Hess clearly explaining why the Debian Constitution is "toxic"?
Yes, it was the Debian Constitution he was referring to. I'm not really sure why this is relevant to the discussion of free software, but I suspect that Luke is conflating it with the Social Contract, and calling it "Debian Charter" which is ... not a thing.
I think Joey was saying that the constitutions existence has resulted in some people having endless discussions about the internal structures of Debian, rather than getting on with something useful instead.
It has absolutely nothing to do with what Luke seems to be suggesting.
As for the non-free thing and the FSF -- changing things would require Debian to consider that to be a good idea, which was certainly not the case in 2004:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002
I doubt that opinion has changed.
Claiming that is related to being unethical, rather than a result of people having differing proprieties, strikes me as rather childish.
On this laptop, I note that I have 4 packages installed from "non-free". One is firmware-iwlwifi, and the other 3 are GFDL licensed docs with invariant sections. I suppose I could buy another wifi card (perhaps one with the same chipset, with the same firmware, in a ROM?).
Then I could chuck the old card into landfill for an "ethical" outcome.
Cheers, Phil.