Comment 109 for bug 44335

This is what we in the U.S. call a Mexican standoff. This is a human problem, not a technical problem. Free software has been burdened by it for decades. This is why Emacs forked and XFree86 stagnated for years under bad management until Keith Packard staged a coup. Most free software developers and maintainers are volunteers, so they can't be forced to do anything. They are free to behave like children if they wish.

I'm concerned when people say things like, "I admire your devotion to your principles, but . . . " in situations like this, because they're confusing integrity with inflexibility. If I refuse to do something which I consider immoral, I am demonstrating integrity. If I'm asked to do something legal, moral, and easy, but I refuse because I believe my interpretation of the rules should prevail, and any who have the temerity to disagree with me must submit to my superior opinion, even if that process is prolonged and inflicts collateral damage upon people who aren't even privy to the dispute, then I'm being inflexible.

This situation is analogous to one I repeatedly encounter in my interactions with children who have Asperger's syndrome/high-functioning autism (I have it, too, like many programmers). Two autistic children who are playing a board game will disagree about the correct interpretation of the rules and they deadlock, neither making a move, each absolutely focused on winning the argument and making the other relent, so they miss the opportunity to enjoy the game, which was the original point.

This behavior isn't admirable, it's petty. The children aren't defending moral principles. They just want everything their way. While there's nothing illogical about what they're doing, it's inconsiderate. They take do-or-die stands on trivial issues because they don't consider what other people might regard as important. Many people think this is simple selfishness, but this is actually a manifestation of a problem we have appreciating, in general, the perspectives of other people, and, specifically, considering the harmful effects our actions will have on other people, particularly bystanders.

I actually agree with Jean-Yves Lefort's interpretation of the Debian policy document, but I'm more sympathetic to Debian's position because I think it's an overly cautious response to a legitimate fear of being destroyed by lawsuits. Even if the lawsuits have no merit, the cost in money and time (especially time) can be severely damaging. Their position may be technically incorrect, but I believe it's understandable in light of the threats to free software (e.g. SCO vs. Linux, a perfect example of a lawsuit without merit consuming time and resources).

I want to emphasize, however, that either side could resolve this standoff. That is the nature of any Mexican standoff. Debian could and should fix the policy document so that people like Jean-Yves and me don't interpret it the way we do, since that isn't their intention. They should do this without regard to what Jean-Yves chooses to do or not do. It will only benefit them in the long run. Whether they will or not, however, is something only they control.

In closing, I'd like to assure both sides that I'm not here just to criticize them. I'm running Debian with mail-notification at this moment, and I'm enjoying them both. mail-notification took long enough to compile that I know I wouldn't have had the patience to write it myself, so I'm appreciative of all the time Jean-Yves spent on it. As for the Debian and Ubuntu maintainers, they've saved me more time and money than I can count. Every time I seen a Vista box fail for no reason, I take a moment to appreciate the benefits of of using a real OS.