Anarchism FAQ?! WTF?...

[Eric Dunbar]

On 13/02/07, Eric Dunbar <eric.dunbar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/02/07, Matt Zimmerman <mdz at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 12:08:56PM +0000, chombee wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 15:56 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > > I don't think that the political position of this document is as much of an
> > > > issue as the question of whether it's appropriate to distribute large
> > > > documents, of no direct relevance to Ubuntu, in the form of Ubuntu packages
> > > > simply for the sake of making them easy to install.  Works of literature,
> > > > encyclopaedic content, etc. are subject to the same debate.
> > > >
> > > > There was a similar question in Debian some time ago, where I believe this
> > > > same package was used as an example.
> > >
> > > Maybe someone already said this but: doesn't the content of the
> > > anarchist faq actually have some relevance to ubuntu and debian? We're
> > > not an explicitly anarchist project but to me at least it seems that our
> > > ways of doing things have a lot in common with anarchist principles and
> > > practise. Open meetings, consensus decision making, anyone can
> > > participate but no one is coerced into participating, etc. Much more
> > > than we have in common with the usual capitalist way of running a
> > > project. I think it is relevant.
> >
> > I think the above analogy is sufficiently tenuous that it doesn't justify
> > the inclusion of such a document based on relevance to the project.  Ubuntu
> > is likely to have something in common with almost any social or political
> > movement, including religion, but rarely any practical relevance to our
> > mission.
> >
> > And, by the way, this argument was more than fully explored in the Debian
> > thread I referenced. ;-)
>
> There's another consideration alluded to by previous posters:
>
> The Anarchism FAQ is not at all directly relevant to the operation of
> Ubuntu. So, since it is not relevant to the operation of Ubuntu its
> secondary value needs to be considered. Granted, anarchism IS directly
> relevant to the open source philosophy of software development since
> they both advocate individual and local decision making and control.
>
> However, Ubuntu is used by people in regimes where merely possessing
> or even being able to access information on democracy is dangerous
> (and, anarchy is the ultimate in local democracy). Is it ethical for
> the maintainers of a more-or-less formally associated repository to
> expose users in these situations to political risk?

I distinguish between political persecutions and intellectual property
right prosecutions.