-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

For nm.debian.org, at 2025-02-05:
I have read and agree to abide by the Debian Social Contract, Debian Free
Software Guidelines, Debian Code of Conduct and Debian Machine Usage Policies
in my Debian work.

With respect to the Debian Machine Usage Policies, I find that most of them are
quite specific. I have not yet had need to make direct use of a DSA managed
machine, so I'm sure I will need to review the policies in the future when that
happens. With that said, most of the policies seem to be common sense.
Regarding the Debian Code of Conduct, I believe that my existing work on the
Debian AI Mailing List demonstrates adherence, though I may sometimes struggle
with the guideline of, "Try to be concise". However, the Debian Social Contract
and the Debian Free Software Guidelines perhaps require more discussion to
demonstrate understanding.

The Debian operating system is unusual in that it is not controlled by an
individual or a company, but is rather a cooperative of sorts. The Debian
project was created with the purpose of making a usable, free operating system
for everyone. It is a project that, to the greatest extent possible, operates
in public and provides users with the information and rights needed for them to
use and modify their system for any purpose they desire.

Debian must be free software, because the restrictions imposed by non-free
software are harmful to users. Legal restrictions on copying and modifications
to software can make it difficult -- or even impossible -- for users to fix
their own problems. If users cannot change the software that they depend on,
the software that they use may eventually stop being a tool to help them, and
instead become a tool to control them. This control can already be seen in
closed ecosystems, like the mobile phones, where companies and governments use
this power for censorship or propaganda.

A somewhat more grounded case for free software was related by Richard Stallman
as the foundation of the free software movement in his speech, "Free Software:
Freedom and Cooperation" (2001) [1]. In it, Stallman describes problems with
his printer:

> we had an idea for how to deal with [paper jams in our Xerox printer]. Change
> it so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the printer
> can tell our timesharing machine [....]

> But, [...] the software that ran that printer was not free software. It had
> come with the printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source
> code; Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as
> programmers -- after all, we had written our own timesharing system -- we
> were completely helpless to add this feature to the printer software. [....]

> And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a copy of
> that software [...] so I went to his office and I said, "Hi, I'm from MIT.
> Could I have a copy of the printer source code?" And he said "No, I promised
> not to give you a copy." I was stunned.

Unfortunately, this is not a unique phenomenon. Debian must do its best to
support an ecosystem of free software where this sort of problem cannot occur.
While Social Contract guideline #1, "Debian will remain 100% free", ensures
that this the case for software within Debian, guideline #2, "We will give back
to the free software community", helps to ensure that the software ecosystems
that Debian draws from remain healthy and vibrant. Debian could not exist
without them.

The guidelines #3, "We will not hide problems", and #4, "Our priorities are our
users and free software", are where I am most likely to encounter conflicts. I
am currently an employee of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and most of the
packages that I contribute to on Debian are related to hardware developed by my
employer. It is likely that from time to time, there will be pressure on me to
do what is best for my employer, rather than what is best for Debian and its
users. This is, however, nothing new to me. As a licensed professional
engineer, I am very familiar with those sorts of conflicts. My professional
code of ethics already demands that I hold the health, safety, and welfare of
the public paramount, followed by the interests of my client, and to put the
interests of my employer third. That has always meant that sometimes I will
have to say "no" to someone who could fire me. That's fine. The buck stops
here. I take on that responsibility voluntarily.

With regards to guideline #5, "Works that do not meet our free software
standards", I should be clear that I have no fundamental objections to
closed-source software. For pragmatic reasons, it is necessary for Debian to
support software that is non-free. There's little point in holding on to our
ideals so tightly that nothing of value can be done on a free software system.
To promote the progress of free software, Debian needs to be a useful system,
and that necessarily means being able to run non-free software sometimes.
Anyway, it's not my place to tell others what they're allowed to do with
Debian.

In particular, I will note that the update to the Debian Social Contract in
2022 made through the General Resolution on non-free firmware [2] has proven to
be quite effective in improving the experience of Debian users. I would have
voted in favour of that resolution.

This is becoming a lengthy document, so rather than going through the Debian
Free Software Guidelines in detail, I will merely say that I've long been
familiar with DFSG principles as adopted by the Open Source Initiative in the
Open Source Definition. I realize that Debian and the OSI are not necessarily
always in agreement, but Debian's principles have inspired many and I've
therefore been familiar with them for many years. It's with great sadness that
I see a resurgence in licences that reject DFSG principles. The principles of
"No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups" and "No Discrimination Against
Fields of Endeavor" were hard-fought and must be protected. Without those
principles, the Free and Open Source Software community would become fractured
and ineffective.

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
[2]: https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=I0rU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----