Comment on "Nine Attitude Problems in Free and Open Source Software"

[Yavor Doganov]

Noah Slater wrote:
> 
> The second name for this is "double standards".
> 
> The standards are only double if you lump yours in with theirs.

Are you sure?  #211765 and #368560 are RC bugs, which means that by
Debian's standards such software cannot be in Debian, because they
promised so in the SC.  Pay attention to the dates when they were
reported, and how the latter is resolved.

Compare that with #495935 where it took a few days for the maintainer
to (unwillingly) "fix" it.

If that's no double standard and you can't see the contradiction, I
really don't have anything to add.

> Cannot Debian teach users about freedom, simply because they also
> provide means for installing non-free software?

Yes, they cannot.  It's like someone convincing you that alcohol is
very bad for your health and at the same time drinking and offering
you the very same alcohol.  It is self-defeating.

> I run Debian on all of my systems and never install non-free software.

If you use Debian's stock kernel, or X/Mesa, you have installed
non-free software.

> have no wireless access, install a non-free driver, or buy a new
> laptop.

That is your personal decision, it has little to do with what we're
talking about.  Wireless is only convenience, so you have chosen the
convenience, like many others.  It doesn't make you a bad guy, it just
weakens your "I am a free software supporter" statement.

>   "You support non-free software, you are the enemy."

Please, I did not say that Debian or you are the enemy.  I only
correct people when they say that Debian defends users' freedom.
Sure, they do more than many other distros (mostly by separating
non-free while unfortunately still distributing it), but it is wrong
to claim that software freedom is their top priority.